The Portland Spectator, April 2003

Portland State University Portland State University

PDXScholar PDXScholar

Portland Spectator University Archives: Campus Publications & Productions

4-15-2003

The Portland Spectator, April 2003 The Portland Spectator, April 2003

Portland State University. Student Publications Board

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/spectator

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Portland State University. Student Publications Board, "The Portland Spectator, April 2003" (2003). Portland Spectator. 13. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/spectator/13

This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Portland Spectator by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected].

PORTLAND PEACE RALLIES • HELL’S ANGELS • UNIVERSITY STUDIES

Spectator

ThePortland

APRIL 2003

The Death of Educationin America

The purpose of the Portland Spectator is to provide the students, faculty, andstaff with the alternative viewpoint to the left-wing mentality forced upon all atPortland State University. The Portland Spectator is concerned with the defenseand advancement of the ideals under which our great Republic was founded. Ourviewpoint originates from the following principles:

Individual Liberty

Limited Government

Free Market Economy and Free Trade

The Rule of Law

The Portland Spectator is published by the Portland State UniversityPublication Board; and is staffed solely by volunteer editors and writers. ThePortland Spectator is funded through incidental student fees, advertisement rev-enue, and private donations. Our aim is to show that a conservative philosophy isthe proper way to approach issues of common concern. In general the staff of thePortland Spectator share beliefs in the following:

-We believe that the academic environment should become again an openforum, where there is a chance for rational and prudent arguments to beheard. The current environment of political correctness, political fundamen-talism and mob mentality stifle genuine political debate.

-We support high academic standards.

-We believe that each student should be judged solely on his/her merits.

-We oppose the special or preferential treatment of any one person or group.

-We believe in an open, fair and small student government.

-We believe that equal treatment yields inequality inherent in our humannature.

-We oppose unequal treatment in order to yield equality, for this violates anyprinciple of justice that can maintain a free and civilized society.

-We oppose the welfare state that either benefits individuals, groups or corpo-rations. The welfare state in the long run creates more poverty, dependency,social and economic decline.

-We believe in Capitalism, and that the sole role of government in economicmatters is to provide the institutional arrangements that allow capitalism toflourish.

-We do not hate the rich; we do not idolize the poor.

-We believe in an activist U.S. foreign policy that seeks to promote and estab-lish freedom, political and economic, all around the world.

-We believe, most importantly, in the necessity of patriotic duty consistentwith the preservation and advancement of our Republic.

2 portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator

APRIL 2003

MISSION STATEMENT

Editor-in-ChiefNapoleon Linardatos

Managing Editor Joey Coon

Senior Editor Shahriyar Smith

Copy EditorJanet Rogers

Technology Director Tom McShane

ContributorsSean H. Boggs S. J. CampbellPatricia ElliotSeth HatmakerStephen Heckman Brian DanielsonMichael King Justice McPhersonDan Mikhno Nathan Pawlicki Mateusz PerkowskiJulia Moore Larry A. Smith

CartoonistDion Lienhard

MEMBER OF THE COLLEGIATE NETWORK

The Portland Spectator is published by theStudent Publication Board of PSU. All signedessays and commentaries herein represent theopinions of the writers and not necessarily theopinions of the magazine or its staff.

The Portland Spectator accepts letters to theeditor and commentaries from students, facultyand staff at the Portland State University. Pleaselimit your letters to 300 words.

We reserve the right to edit material we findobscene, libelous, inappropriate or lengthy. Weare not obliged to print anything that does notsuit us. Unsolicited material will not be returnedunless accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Submission constitutes tes-timony as to the accuracy.-Each person limited to 3 copies -Copyright © 2003 The Portland Spectator. Allrights reserved.

The

SpectatorPortland

LIFE LIBERLIFE LIBERTY PROPERTY PROPERTYTY

Email:[email protected]

Tips:[email protected]

Web Site:portlandspectator.com

Address:

The Portland SpectatorPO Box 347, Portland OR 97207

Contact InformationTelephone:503.725.9795

Office Hours:Monday 1pm-5pmTuesday 1pm-3pm

Location:Smith MemorialCenter S-28(sub-basement)

April 2003 • Volume 2 • Issue 7

Departments

Articles

Books & Arts

18 Hell’s Angels MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI

APRIL 2003

3The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

CONTENTS

portlandspectator.com

4 6 2223 24

Parenthesis EditorialLettersHealthy Body Sick MindBack Page Satire

7 9 10 12 15 16 17

University Studies Reform NATHAN PAWLCKI

Churchill, Appeasement and Iraq MICHAEL KING

Walking with Dinosaurs SHAHRIYAR SMITH

The Death of Education in America S. J. CAMPBELL

Lost in Traffic JUSTICE MCPHERSON

The Beer Tax JOEY COON

United They Fall RICHARD PERLE

Lost In Traffic The irrational distain

for the automobile.

By Justice McPherson

Page 16

4 portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator

APRIL 2003

PARENTHESIS

Cletus, Get Out of My Wallet With populations declining in many

small towns in rural America, a bill hasbeen introduced to entice people toleave the big city and live the countrylifestyle. The bill, being pushed by twoU.S. Senators from Minnesota, wouldpay up to $27,000 in tax credits andstudent-loan repayments over severalyears.

Not only is the American taxpayer cur-rently paying many rural families NOTto grow crops, this bill would force themto further subsidize backwoods bump-kins, living in what columnist JeffTaylor characterizes as “some God-for-saken hell hole which by rights shoulddry up and blow away.”

From Terrorist to Euro-TrashWali Khan Ahmadzai, a 23 year-old

Afghan refugee, is the first Taliban fight-er to openly seek asylum in Britain.Believing he would be harmed by thenew Afghan government, Ahmadzai fledthe country “in a convoy of Datsunsgiven by Osama bin Laden” and movedto Britain to “have a good life.”

But don’t think that his enjoyment ofnew-found-freedom his softened hishatred. “I live here but I still thinkAmerica and Britain are enemies of theAfghanistan people and Muslim people,”he says. Strange how the line betweenwar criminal and persecuted refugee hasbeen blurred.

Sniffing StainsThe chief minister of the Malaysian

state of Selangor has urged women tocheck their husband’s pants for tell-talestains or hotel receipts if they suspectthe men of visiting prostitutes.

The women are instructed to take anysoiled trousers to the authorities as evi-dence which will be used to catch menwith their pants down, so to speak.

THE GREAT PAT MOYNIHANFor calling attention, four decades ago, to the cri-

sis of the African American family -- 26 percent ofchildren were being born out of wedlock -- he wasdenounced as a racist by lesser liberals. Today thepercentage among all Americans is 33, amongAfrican Americans 69, and family disintegration,meaning absent fathers, is recognized as the mostpowerful predictor of most social pathologies.

At the United Nations he witnessed that institu-tion's inanity (as in its debate about the threat topeace posed by U.S. forces in the Virgin Islands, atthat time 14 Coast Guardsmen, one shotgun, one pis-tol) and its viciousness (the resolution condemningZionism as racism). Striving to move America "fromapology to opposition," he faulted U.S. foreign policyelites as "decent people, utterly unprepared for theirwork."

- George Will, The Washington Post, March 27 2003

Nor are Iraqis likely to cheer a U.N. role that enhances the power of France andRussia and China and Germany, all countries which made commercial deals withSaddam and cynically tried to thwart the military liberation of Iraq. All of them,especially France and Russia, are desperate to maintain in free Iraq oil concessionsgranted by Saddam. Also, the Germans built a bunker for Saddam designed towithstand a nuclear attack. The French constructed the nuclear reactor at Osirik,which the Israelis destroyed in 1981. And so on.

- Fred Barnes, weeklystandard.com, April 6 2003

portlandspectator.com

THE U.N. FACTOR

There is nothing conservative about war. For at least the last century war hasbeen the herald and handmaid of socialism and state control. It is the excuse forcensorship, organised lying, regulation and taxation. It is paradise for the busy-body and the nark. It damages family life and wounds the Church. It is, in short,the ally of everything summed up by the ugly word ‘progress’

- Peter Hitchens, The Spectator, April 5 2003

THE LEFT-WING WAR

The defining characteristic of the Northern Ireland model is that it is a morality-free zone. Indeed, one of the first things Mr Blair did on taking office was to admitSinn Fein/IRA into all-party talks without its having to abandon the tools of vio-lence. This week, he will no doubt be urging his guest not to insist that Palestinians for-

swear coercion before full-scale negotiations resume. In Northern Ireland, MrBush will be able to see for himself how terrorists can endlessly cash in the toolsof violence for startling political gains.

-Editorial, The Daily Telegragh, April 7 2003

REWARDING TERRORISM

5The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

APRIL 2003

Students teach cityWhen the war began last month, a dedi-cated group of PSU students decided toshow Portland how an education helpspeople grow and develop. With thecoordination of various groups, theymet up with a larger demonstration andyelled a lot, blocked traffic, got arrested,then maced, and to top it all off, theyshowed everyone through reasonedargument (crying “why” with mace intheir eyes) how they were the victims.

Any problem with the Blazers?Well, it finally looks certain: we’re

screwed. The Blazers are officially indoobie-smokin’ felony mode. ReubenPatterson and Zach Randolph showteam spirit by getting into a fistfightduring practice, while the rookie on theteam, Qyntel Woods, learned quicklyfrom the veteran teammates by gettingcited for possession of marijuana whilespeeding.

It’s pretty depressing for the playoffpicture: a team that’s stoned all thetime and brawls during practice

The hopeless SenateIt appears that the last useful thing the

Senate could possibly do for studentshas just been avoided. The idea is thatthey pass a budget so that everyone canget student fees. Every student groupas well as Athletics gets this money.The Senate though, seems incapable ofaction.

With this useless Senate, someoneshould just step in and do it for them.Why should so much money be put inthe hands of a bunch of nincompoops?

The right thingThe State House recently passed a bill thateffectively eliminated the measure passedby voters to increase the minimum wagein Oregon. While the economic dangersof the ill-fated measures 28 and 23seemed glaringly apparent to voters,somehow, the economically destructiveand crippling effects of a minimum wagehike was missed. Kudos to the House fordoing its job and protecting Oregon’s’economy and the jobs of small businessesand entrepreneurs.

Making the Elections

NOT TO CONFUSE YOULast year the elections page of ASPSU appeared in most computer labs.Not this time though. Apparently, the APSU was concerned about possiblehigh turnout. At the end we ended up with the usual 6%. ASPSU spendslots of time preparing for the general elections, but they don’t actuallywant people to participate. Suppressing the turn out helps the same oldpeople get re-elected.

WHAT DOES WRITE-IN MEAN?The Elections Committee decided to change the definition of write-in.Several individuals running for various positions were given write-in sta-tus according to election guidelines due to late submissions. While theterm spells out quite clearly that the candidates names were not to beadded to the ballot, but must be “written in” by voters, the electionsCommittee chose to disregard the rules. As usual, Salem resident andASPSU president and committee member Kristin Wallace failed to showup. Not that it would have mattered if she had, since she rarely minds dis-regarding ASPSU guidelines.

NEED HELPOSPIRG, in its campaign to get $120,000 of student fees, has used moneyfrom the non-profit OSPIRG Foundation. They also received help fromnon-PSU students and the full support of the ASPSU executive. At the endthey won, but the vote was surprisingly close. Now that OSPIRG has come closer to the $120,000 we might not see as

many posters decrying imminent global warming, or the plight of thehomeless caribou. Nothing like the time tested political method of usingdoom and gloom to scare up support.

Tom G. Palmer at PSUOn March 3, Tom G. Palmer, a SeniorFellow at the premier libertarian think-tankthe Cato Institute, spoke on the economicand societal benefits of global trade. After an intriguing lecture and a lengthyquestion and answer period, Dr. Palmerinvited the audience to continue the discus-sion at Hot Lips Pizza, where hebought beer and pizza for a group of about25 people.

In a recent New York Times article, the author described thereaction in a small Iragi village as U.S. troops rolled into town.

"In the giddy spirit of the day, nothing could quite top thewish list bellowed out by one man in the throng of people greet-ing American troops from the 101st Airborne Division whomarched into town today.

"What, the man was asked,did he hope to see now thatthe Baath Party had been dri-ven from power in his town?What would the Americansbring?'Democracy,' the man said,his voice rising to lift eachword to greater prominence.'Whiskey. And sexy!'

"Around him, the crowdroared its approval."Not exactly what we are fight-ing for, but "Democracy,Whiskey, and Sexy" will workfor now. Ahead of us lie manyobstacles. As this editorial iswritten the war goes well but in no way should we rule out anasty turn of events.Of course the most difficult part of this whole enterprise is the

day after the fall of the dictatorship. Democracy is somethingthat many may desire but it doesnít come easy. Oftentimes incountries with limited experience of representative govern-ment, democratic reforms degenerate into mob rule.

A respect for individual rights is elementary to the future ofthe Iraqi democracy. And with that should come firm protec-tions for property rights and openness to trade. We believe thatthose should be established before any long term democratic

reforms are made. Only a prosperous Iraq can have a thrivingdemocracy.

Many people view Iraqís oil reserves as a blessing. That maybe so, but historical experience proves otherwise. Oil in theMiddle East has worked to retard economic and political

progress. Ruling elites haveused the black gold to buy theapproval of the local popula-tion and in return no eco-nomic or political reformshave taken place. Perhaps,paid apathy could haveworked for the corrupt rulersof the Middle East, but oilprices happen to fluctuate.

Iraqís oil will surely helpfinance the immediate needsof the population but in thelong run it might be provenan impediment to progress. Politicians will be tempted touse the county’s oil wealth tobuy votes. The Bush adminis-

tration should set all the conditions in place that would allowfree markets to flourish. This is the only chance for Iraq tochange for the better.

And let us be clear that the U.N. should stay out of it. In thefirst place it would be immoral to put in charge the people whoopposed the liberation of Iraq. Secondly, the U.N. is infamousfor its shortcomings in managing countries, most notably inBosnia. The U.N. role should be limited to humanitarian help.The less the U.N. helps, the faster “Democracy, Whiskey andSexy” will arrive.

6 portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator

APRIL 2003

“Democracy, whiskey and sexy”

EDITORIAL

Affirmative Action v. Fairness

The United States Supreme Court has begun hearing Grutterand Gratz v. Bollinger, a case challenging the legality of theUniversity of Michigan’s racial based admissions policy. Forthe first time in over 25 years the highest court in the land hasthe opportunity to end the tradition of a discriminatoryand patently racist policy.

Regardless of the verdict, this case will undoubtedly prove tobe a landmark in the affirmative action debate.

Barbara Grutter applied to the University of Michigan hold-ing a 3.81 grade-point-average, and an LSAT score of 161, plac-ing her in the 86th percentile nationally. But while 100 per-cent of black law school applicants with the exact same qualifi-cations are admitted, white students are admitted at a rate ofonly 8.6 percent. The University admits students using a pointscale.

An applicant receives 3 points for an “outstanding” college

essay, 12 points for a perfect SAT score, and a whopping 20points for “underrepresented racial/ethnic identification.”

There are finite resources available to universities and con-sequently only a fixed number of applicants can be accepted.Thus, to accept an unqualified student on the basis of race,necessarily entails that a qualified student who is not a mem-ber of a sought after racial group is denied access. This policy explicitly awards privileges and punishments baseddominantly on the color of an individual’s skin.

If the court truly means to uphold the rights outlined in ourcountry’s founding documents and intends to send a messagethat racial discrimination of any kind is unacceptable, then itmust reject the use of state sponsored affirmative action poli-cies in public institutions.

THE motto of Portland StateUniversity is, “Let Knowledge Serve theCity.” In order to achieve this worthygoal, PSU strives to be an access institu-tion where people from all walks of lifecan endeavor to use the resources of theuniversity to better themselves and oth-ers through the common pursuit ofknowledge and reason.

Almost a decade ago, PSUchose to incorporate UniversityStudies into its academic cur-riculum. Portland Statedescribes University Studies andits overall goal, “…to facilitatethe acquisition of the knowl-edge, abilities, and attitudes thatwill form a foundation for life-long learning among its stu-dents.” This is supposedlyachieved through a four-yearprogram that is unique to PSUand is not widely adopted else-where.

Portland State Universityprides itself on its diversity andthat it’s campus is host to students frommany backgrounds and experiences.However, this illustrates how PortlandState University must do everything pos-sible to be flexible and meet the dis-parate needs of all students. WhileUniversity Studies may have worthwhilegoals, it is not able to meet the needs ofall those students that PSU was createdto serve.

Here are some ways in whichUniversity Studies does not best servethe needs of all students: UniversityStudies classes have great difficultytransferring to other schools, especiallythose beyond the state of Oregon. Noone knows what the future may bringand students must have all options opento them so that they can be prepared tosucceed at PSU or elsewhere.

In doing this, students must have theability to take classes that they are surewill help them wherever they are. SincePSU mandates University Studies, ittherefore does not recognize the workput in by students who decide to followthe traditional general education route.

This also applies to transfer studentswho satisfied their former school’s gen-eral education requirement only to findthat it is not enough. In their enthusi-asm for this new learning style, PSU hasforgotten the path that has led so manydown the road to a solid education andthe means of creating a better life for

themselves and others.The traditional route may not be new

and cutting edge, but it must not be dis-missed. Someone once said, “Thenotion that we can dismiss the views ofall previous thinkers surely leaves nobasis for the hope that our own work willprove of any value to others.” Thethoughts and methods of the past mustnot be discarded in the rush to embracethe future. In doing so, we throw awaythe very foundation that gives us theability to innovate and adapt for thefuture.

Many other complaints arise about thedifficulty of the program, or lack thereof.At the same time, others are condemnedto continue their education without asolid understanding of the fundamentalsof how to properly read or write at thelevels that life in school and beyond willrequire of them. It is the very idea of aone-size fits all classroom that doesn’tallow for each individual student to getthe amount of attention they need.Using the traditional route, studentstake classes that focus specifically on

addressing these fundamentals. Thisway, the failure of one class to meet oneneed does not mean the failure of oneclass to meet all needs.

There are many more argumentsincluding academic quality and rigor, avague theme-based structure, and aforced service to the community, but

what matters most is simply thatthere are students at PortlandState University who feel thatthey are not being served. Thereare students who wish that theuniversity would unchain themfrom these obligations and allowthem to learn and succeed in aproven manner that has workedto enrich the lives of millions.Portland State has led the chargefor this new program, but we haveseen that the desires of many stu-dents have been ignored in thename of “progress.”

Like other new programs andinnovations, University Studiesdoes not need to be forgotten.

Instead what we must do is allow thetried methods and knowledge of the pastto be a firm foundation on which tobuild. University Studies must prove tostudents that it offers not just an alter-native to the traditional route, but a bet-ter one. The one to ultimately decidethat however is each individual student.Many students come to Portland Statebecause they feel that it is in their bestinterests overall even in spite of prob-lems associated with University Studies.

University Studies has the potential todramatically affect the way that univer-sities teach students and over time theprogram will have the opportunity togrow in quality and be increasingly rec-ognized and accepted elsewhere. Forthe time being, we must work to bothincrease the quality of this well-inten-tioned program, but still allow studentsto decide the course of their own future.In order to achieve this goal we mustrecognize where University Studies fallsshort and then propose realistic meansto address these problems. �

7The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

APRIL 2003

�PSU

Giving options to students, making the program better. BY NATHAN PAWLICKI

University Studies Reform

8

The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

APRIL 2003

9

Recently I’ve thought that if I were towrite an essay commending Tony Blairfor his support on the current war inIraq, I would call it “His Finest Hour.”That would, of course, be an obvious ref-erence to Winston Churchill, anotherBritish PM who attempted to call theattention of Britain and the world to athreat posed by another dictator, onewho was also ignored, his threat down-played and whose moral virtues (or lackthereof) were overlooked by many influ-ential people. While obviously the detailsare different now, many of the generalthemes that were so eloquently champi-oned by Churchill are just as relevanttoday as they were in the 1930s.

In 1935, the British newspaper tycoon(and Germanophile) Lord Rothermerevisited Germany, and was impressedwith the new Nazi regime. When he triedto explain his reasoning to Churchill,then a struggling Conservative MP out offavor with most of his party, Churchillresponded: “If his (Hitler’s) proposalmeans that we should come to an under-standing with Germany to dominateEurope, I think this would be contrary tothe whole of our history.” This deepunderstanding of Britain’s role inEurope, along with a much more realisticassessment of human nature is what setChurchill apart from his opponents.

Often overlooked is the interesting factthat one of Churchill’s ancestors, JohnChurchill, the first Duke of Marlborough,formed an integral part of his outlook.Marlborough commanded armies of theGrand Alliance during the War of theSpanish Succession in the early 18th cen-tury, an attempt by the British govern-ment to stop one power from completelydominating Europe. FortunatelyChurchill didn’t possess a formal acade-mic background in history. Rather, in atrait often overlooked today, he readvoraciously, and possessed a tremendousability to recall facts. To Churchill, it wasobvious that Germany had to bestopped-it was quite simply in Britain’slifeblood. From Waterloo to World WarI, British policy had been based on thebalance of power. To appease Germany

might in the short term bring peace andstability, but at the expense of makingBritain a vassal state of a Nazi Europe.The Great War had been fought to keepImperial Germany in check-if Britainshould appease Germany 20 years later,then what were those horrible sacrificesof the Lost Generation for?

On the surface, one of the most perva-sive and rational sounding argumentsagainst invading Iraq (though as I writethis it’s a little too late to turn back) is thethreat posed by North Korea. Here wehave a state that has the ability to attackthe Western United States, and can becompared to the Michael Jackson of theworld-a weird, backwards country thatcan be incredibly unpredictable. Surely,this offers a chance for Iraqi appeasers toact like hawks, while still making surethat useless formalities, like weaponsinspectors acting under the aegis of theU.N., are allowed into Iraq.

Actually, North Korea offers the exam-ple of what happens when appeasementreaches its logical conclusion. Apartfrom the horrible carnage that wouldresult from a conventional war on theKorean Peninsula, a nuclear war is sim-ply too dangerous to risk. WhatAmerican president would want to riskSeattle or Los Angeles? The rubicon hasalready been crossed: there is simply toohigh of a chance that North Koreaalready has nuclear-tipped ballistic mis-siles. That is what makes the dove’s argu-ments so perverse: it’s the wrong coun-try, and too little too late. The eight yearsof acquiescence during the ClintonAdministration regarding both NorthKorea and Iraq are a perfect analogue tothe MacDonald-Baldwin-Chamberlainera of the U.K in the 1930s.

Desert Storm was the perfect applica-tion of what I call the Churchill Doctrine.Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, and wasprevented from potentially exploiting theoil wealth of the Persian Gulf states.Assuming the U.S. military would havebeen drawn down during the 1990s ashistorical, a fat Iraq, growing rich fromthe oil wealth of the Arabian peninsula,with 12 extra years to make WMDs

would be a much more difficult country to invade. At the time of theMunich meeting between Chamberlainand Hitler in 1938, Churchill wrote to afriend: “we seem to be very near thebleak choice between War and Shame.My feeling is that we shall choose Shame,and then have War thrown in a little lateron even more adverse terms than at pre-sent.” La plus ca change…

What, then are we to learn from histo-ry? I’ve noticed that one of my favoritequotes from Edmund Burke has beengaining popularity recently: The onlything necessary for the triumph of evil isfor good men to do nothing. This is thelesson from history that we mustremember, and what helped Churchillsave Western Civilization. Evil men willalways be with us, and sometimes onlyarmed conflict, perhaps taken withoutthe consent of the international commu-nity, will suffice.

Those who see differently have alwaysoffered various excuses: Perhaps collec-tive security will work, (the League ofNations, the U.N.); perhaps geographycan allow us to do nothing (the attitudeof British conservatives in the 1930s,American paleoconservatives today),perhaps Hussein/Hitler/whoever isn’t asevil as the hawks are making him out tobe (idealistic and misguided religiousliberals, doves on the far left). In each ofthese cases, history has proven themfalse.

It is practically a cliché, but those whoneglect the lessons of history are doomedto repeat them. Let us be thankful then,that those in power, particularly in theU.S., U.K. and Australia, have takenthose lessons to heart. �

�FOREIGH POLICY

The same yesterday, today and tomorrow. BY MICHAEL KING

Churchill, Appeasement and Iraq

For newsand commentary.

DAILY UPDATES

portlandspectator.com

portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator10

The futile efforts of the vocal minority. BY SHAHRIYAR SMITH

Walking with Dinosaurs

March 15 – mid-day. I had decided toattend the anti-war demonstration at thewaterfront to see just exactly what wasgoing on, what it was about. As I walkeddown to the waterfront, I encountered agroup of people also heading to thedemonstration. They were a politicallyactive neighborhood association fromthe Washington County area. I askedthem what they were doing, what theirmessage was, what they stood for. Theysaid they wanted peace in the world, butdid not further clarify exactly how or bywhat measure they hoped to attain it. Ipressed the question politely. A womanwho was clearly the head of the grouptold me that they believed in anothersolution, that there was a better way.They didn’t seem to really know exactlywhat that was, they just seemed to holdthe belief that there was one. Many ofthem were elderly, or middle-aged withfamilies. I got the feeling that they weredecent people who just didn’t like warand wanted peace. Their march was notone of specific objection, or advocacy,but one of faith that there was a bettersolution.I parted with their group as I neared the

waterfront. There were masses of peo-ple. I guessed five or ten thousand in thecrowd. I looked across the river at thebridge. Steady streams of people werestill coming as far as I could see. I didnot immediately join the main crowd. Istood at the edge, watching people comein. There were many signs and slogans.People beating drums and congas walkedby. I thought of the obvious irony inbeating the “drums of war” at a peace

rally. It was so militaristic. Half of thekids were in camouflage. These peoplewere not like the ones I had met on theway, they were real radicals. Wheresigns once read: “think of the children”and “love is the answer,” they now read:“legalize it,” “abolish government,” and“no blood for oil.” I smiled at the last

sign. Every person informed about thepresent situation knew that this was nota war for oil - the oil contracts are held bynations opposing the war - but it didn’tlook like anyone informed had botheredto show up. They must have been signsleft over from Gulf War I. I actually sawa sign that read: “free Mumia.” As theypassed I heard a mother caution herchild, “Zack, stay close,”

There were also flyers and postcardsbeing handed out. Tax resistance andsuch things. One of the cards was to CityCommissioner Francesconi asking himto reintroduce the resolution opposingwar in Iraq. In the corner was a littlestamp. It was the insignia of theIndustrial Workers of the World. It did-n’t surprise me. The event was spon-sored by, among others, FreedomSocialist Party, Socialist Party of Oregon,

International Socialist Organization, andSocialist Party – USA. I thought tomyself about all the people those policiesstarved and killed, it didn’t matter, notmuch made sense here anyway. Peoplewere out chanting nonsensical slogansand holding obscene, childish signs.They were just expressing themselves.There’s no problem with this, but therewere thousands of people doing it atonce – kind of a lot to take in.

The tension was amusing: well-to-domiddle class people feeling like going ona Saturday afternoon adventure remind-ing them of decades past, walking withpeople they weren’t sure would mugthem or not. And the other half, lookingat them like fair-weather protesters, youknow: posers. There was no definitefeeling of unconditional group love.Instead, everyone was focused on thestage.

I moved into the main crowd. Therewere many video cameras and peopletaking pictures. It seemed like thedemonstration itself was an occasion forthem: “Wow, look at all the people. Uh,I’m a hardened activist, here’s my proof.”

I came into her speech halfway. “Weare so many people! And so strong! Weneed to stop this war! Get to a bucket!And give whatever you can!” They weremarveling at their own size, their own‘magnificence’ and then hitting peopleup for cash. Buckets accepting dona-tions were set up everywhere. Themoney was going to pay for the costs ofthe demonstration (with the huge speak-

continued next page

Por

tland

Trib

une

Pic

ture

s

Do you support or oppose the UnitedStates having gone to war with Iraq?

Support 77%Oppose 16No opinion 7

Source: Washington Post-ABC News Poll Monday, April7, 2003

11The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

APRIL 2003FEBRUARY 2003

ers and giant stage), and all extra cashwould go to the groups. Every five min-utes or so, the buckets were mentioned.“If you haven’t already, get to a bucket.Every booth has one. If you even have adollar, that’s one dollar we can use!”

Eventually, people were called tomarch. An Asian drum group took thestage for a while. They were followed bya melodramatic peace band with folkguitar and a flute. I thought about howcliché it was, but after what I had justwitnessed, it was pretty hard to be sur-prised. All in all, the demonstration wasnot that bad. It had afew distasteful parts,but overall its mes-sage was clear: abunch of people didn’tlike war, and therewere lots of them.This puzzled me. Ifthere were so manypeople out hereprotesting the war,how could it possiblyhave so much popularsupport? The atmos-phere seemed over-whelmingly anti-war.There was an appar-ent discrepancybetween what I wastold was public opin-ion and what I wasseeing with my owneyes.A few days later, on the first day the war

began, I knew that there would be moreanti-war protests and demonstrations. Ialso heard about a pro-war demonstra-tion happening on the waterfront. Idecided to check the anti-war demon-stration out first. There was a group ofPSU students forming in the park blocksaround 2 pm to march around for anhour or two and then meet up with thelarger demonstration.

I arrived just as they were leaving thepark blocks. I walked off to the side ofthem and listened. Many of the signswere the same as I had previously seen.“No war for oil” and so on. They had aset number of chants that they keptcycling through with a speakerphone inthe center of the group. “No war forprofit,” “peace now,” and “not my presi-

dent, not my war” were but a few of thecharming slogans.

They were marching while surroundedby police on bikes. An enthusiastic girlran by me with her friend, “Come on, Iwant to be in the middle of it!” As wewalked by, I could hear people standingoutside of buildings and passersby com-menting, “So stupid.” “Some of themlook a little old to be students.” Itappeared that the crowd, which wasmarching down the middle of the street,was making people angry. But everytime they stopped to look at a building to

see the people staring out the windows atthem they began cheering. The people inthe windows weren’t waving or anything,but the crowd cheered anyway. As theywalked, they would periodically stopchanting and begin cheering for them-selves with “woohoo’s” and the periodi-cal fist shooting up in the air.

As we reached the main demonstration,which was sizeable but not nearly as bigas the last, the streets were cleared. Ioverheard a protester comment, “Bitchinabout pot and they’re over there killin’people. I’m just getting’ stoned man.”“Great,” I thought to myself. “Just great.”After observing things for a while, I raninto of all things, a Frenchman. He wascursing at the protesters. He came up tome and patted me on the shoulder, hehad seen me wave off protesters motion-ing for me to join in. “It is good that you

use your brain.” He said in a Europeanaccent. I spoke with him for a littlewhile. His name was Serge. I asked himwhere he was from. When he told me, hesaw my jaw drop. He shook my hand,told me he hated Chirac, and how herespected the US because “Americansdied so zat ze French could be free.”Amidst all of the French bashing, I felt alittle ashamed. But it didn’t look likeSerge did.

Someone approached me with a resolu-tion to “impeach President Bush.” Iinformed them that he was “part of my

holy trinity,”jokingly ofcourse andwatched theirfaces contort inabject horror. Ijust turnedaround and left.It wasn’t worthtalking to thema n y m o r e .There wasBlack Sabbathplaying in theb a c k g r o u n d ,then eventuallysome Rage. Itwas all so trite.Much of whatthey were doinghad lost itsforce some time

ago. And it seemed that their momen-tum was self-perpetuating. Every fifteenminutes I heard cheers. I only heard oneor two cars honk, but they were goingnuts.

I proceeded to the waterfront to see thepro-war demonstration. It was tiny -maybe a hundred to a hundred and fiftypeople. Flags and “liberate Iraq” or“support our troops” signs were beingheld. There were a few radicals trying toget into the middle while yelling racistslogans. “Yeah, lets go get those damnragheads. Let’s kill ‘em all” A deter-mined and loud group of pro-war pro-testers yelled them to the corner of thecrowd.

I couldn’t really hear what was goingon. Cars going by were blaring their

continued on page 20

portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator

APRIL 2003

12

The Death of Educationin America

UPON what justification is the exis-tence of the modern American universitypredicated? This may seem a strangequestion; the initial reaction is perhapsderision. What person would speak outagainst education? Nevertheless, it isthe most important question for anyintellectual functioning within thismilieu. The bias is that everyone inAmerica should be educated, whether itbe expressed in our cultural desire forhigh ranking local public schools, or ouringrained assumption of a ‘right’ to high-er education. But for anyone who caresabout the free exchange of ideas, thesecultural biases raise important questionsthat should be addressed.

It may seem strange and comical thatone might question the validity andvalue of our American bias toward edu-cation, but that anyone would need a jus-tification for the existence of the modernAmerican university itself is howlinglyludicrous. Nevertheless it is the questionthe modern American university hasforced upon us, by virtue of the onlyabsolute value it has championed in thelast half century: relativism. This is notan attack on relativism, rather a look athow relativism has degraded the wholeof the American university and the mod-ern education.

Relativism has been the particular doc-trine of the modern university at least

since the major shift in global thinkingthat took place after the first and secondworld wars. While Europe and theAmerican ‘lost generation’ shifted theirunderstanding of the nature of mankindand the world in its literature and socialphilosophy, it wasn’t until after the sec-ond world war that continental Americamade the same shift with the advent ofthe atomic age, photographs of concen-tration camps, and the stories of Naziatrocities. In America there was also thespecial circumstances of the civil rights,and the women’s liberation movements.

The arguments compounded upon eachother, mixing everything together in asoup of the world’s inheritance of ideas,

BY S.J. CAMPBELL

APRIL 2003

13The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

and referred to them with general dis-taste. Ideas had led us to these horrificwars; ideas had burned the Jewish inovens. Ideas had defended slavery andfemale obedience. The time, and the tol-eration, for ideas, was over. If strongbelief had led to such atrocities, then themodern intellectual could commit nogreater wrong than that of strong belief.

In the universities, this shift changedthe landscape of the requirements untilthe contemporary understanding of‘general education and breadth’ hasbecome as foreign as to be not recogniz-able to the curricula of the past.But it is in the face of these oldrequirements of learning that a his-torical criticism rises to the surface,and must be addressed: that of thequestion of standards.

Throughout history, the ‘educat-ed’ have been held to standards thatwould set the modern academic’sheart twittering with terror. For aliberally educated person to be flu-ent in only one language would be ahumiliation. Not to be fluent inLatin? Not to have read the classicsin the original?

The scholar of the past would con-sider this not having read them atall. One has merely to flip thoughthe intellectual journals of onlyeighty or so years ago, to see thateven the intellectual dilettantes hada wider knowledge base than domost modern academics. It shouldbe taken as a condemnation of theAmerican institution that now it ispossible to matriculate with adegree in literature and never tohave studied Homer. And in termsof actual cultural literacy, one need notbe fluent in a foreign language; onemerely needs to receive the credits.

America has not gotten dumber; wehave dropped the gold standard of erudi-tion. Today, the standards usedthroughout most of western historyqualifying one to be ‘an educated person’are so much higher than they are todayas to be considered by most people to beunreasonable and perhaps even impossi-ble. But more importantly, to the mod-ern student, these historical standards ofknowledge and learning seem irrelevant. Why study, to the point of exhaustion,the foreign language, when we have toomany decent translations to choose

from? And in fact, why read them at all,when it’s just as easy to pass the testfrom copied down lecture notes fromclass? As any serious student of lan-guages will affirm, there is much more toa foreign language that the information-al content of a specific set of words set inorder. This, however, is lost, and theUniversity allows the students to skimalong the surface, and in fact gettingtheir degrees without ever getting deepenough into their chosen foreign lan-guage to know this small revelation. Weeven translate literature in our own lan-

guage into more contemporary versions,such as is repeatedly done with theCanterbury tales. We can’t even be both-ered to read our own literature in ourown language, let alone the cultures ofthe rest of the world.

This, the dropping of historical stan-dards of education, and this general apa-thy, is the unintended gift of relativism.As relativism crept into the halls andtextbooks, it brought with it not merelythe toleration of other ideas as it intend-ed, but just this kind of apathy to allideas. It was a path, intelligently chosen,to disavow the atrocities of the recentpast, the radiation sickness, genocide.And for much of the history since then, it

has effectively functioned with its origi-nal intention.

One cannot believe in the inherentsuperiority of their own race if they havebeen taught to believe that all beliefs arecultural chimeras. They are societal fan-tasies that the masses unknowingly par-ticipate in, but the intellectuals knowbetter. They can see through the fantasyto the basic sophist laws of cultural rela-tivism. But two thousand years ago,even while Gorgias spoke that nothing istrue, and even if it were, it could not beunderstood, and even if it could, it could

not be communicated, he said that itwas important to obey and worshipthe old gods, because it stabilizedsociety, and made for commonalitiesbetween a citizen and his neighbor.But this too leaves a vague distaste ofpropaganda to the modern academ-ic.

To allow the old gods their respectis to be in danger of the impressionthat one is aligning with them. It ispreferable to remove the masks ofthese false gods, to wave the air clearof those smoky chimeras in whichthe masses believe. And so it waswith the best intentions that theAmerican University’s response wasto change the patterns of education.But in going so far intellectually toquell the dangers of fanaticism, theyhave systematically vilified and thendestroyed the possibility of all belief,and with it, of knowledge itself.

In becoming a relativistic institu-tion, the university has effectively cutthe body of their argument off, andall that remains is the undefendedassertion that these people they

teach are somehow better off. But indevaluing all values there is no objecttowards which education is striving.Educators are therefore impotent andleft floundering without the hope of pur-poseful action.

All of this is only complicated by thefact that if there is no specific goal ineducation, no vision of the educated per-son, toward which to base one’s efforts,there is ultimately no way to make valuejudgments about one’s progress movingstudents toward that end. In otherwords, teachers have no standards inorder to evaluate if they’re succeeding,

continued next page

portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator

APRIL 2003

14

let alone if they’re contributing some-thing of worth.

Since one idea is not better than theothers, there is no absolute, no vision ofcomplete education. The educated per-son in America is not a better citizen,approves of his country not more thanany other. He has greater capacity todeal with no situation, whether real orimagined than any other. If once thegoal of education was to make theAmerican student a more capableAmerican, with understanding andfamiliarity of the texts andideas upon which thiscountry was founded,today’s student will betaught to not be so sure.And the student, havinghis doubts, rather thanbe encouraged to investi-gate for himself, or to dothe work of the good byseeking better methodsand means, has simplebecome distrusting andapathetic.

The whole of America’s founding prin-ciples and figures are not re-evaluated,they are dismissed. “Thomas Jeffersonkept slaves,” they say, and in doing sodisqualify without further comment thewhole of the American thesis. If the goalonce was to promote job skills, it is todaythe student’s place merely to questionthe relative importance of business.

If once the goal of education was tobecome familiar with all the cultures ofthe world in order to better find truthand systems of thought, whether person-al or political, and make use of them intheir daily lives, today there is theunderstanding that all cultures have val-ues, and instead of being encouraged tolook into them, and to learn from them,take the wisdom, and apply it to our ownsociety, instead of asking the intellectualto make society and the student’s ownlife better, it is rather evaluated that allcultures have values, therefore all valuesare the same. To judge a culture or avalue better or worse than any otherwould be to deny the basic underlyingabsolute of contemporary thought: thateverything is not good or bad, merelyrelative. To make any evaluation of any-thing is to commit the fallacy of belief. To the honest intellectual, this chain oflogic ends with the impossibility of true

knowledge. All that is left is a lifelongstring of “I statements,” although wecan’t really be too sure about he natureof the “I” involved, nor the particular lin-guistic abstractions that are being uti-lized in an attempt to convey that infor-mation.

So instead of building up, we breakdown. In the relative world, dissent isthe only appropriate expression. Eternalcriticism of existing policies and ideolo-gies. Making up for perceived historicalwrongs by destroying the institutions.

Clear the air of these old gods.In this, there is a problem, and that isthat dissent ends up only in destruction,in tearing down, and no society canfunction, indeed no person can functionin this kind of environment. The con-stant second-guessing, dissenting, inde-cision is nothing but destructive. In fact,it’s the definition of neurosis.

This is the circumstance predicted inthe nameless antihero of Dostoevsky’s“Notes From Underground.” In thisportrait of what the modern intellectualmust not become, the slight wrong ofbeing bumped as he walks down theroad sends the narrator into two years ofrelativistic indecision, hungering aftervengeance, but never able to convincehimself of the justice of it. His logic isprecise, but he misses the point. Whenhe finally decides to revenge himself, hedoesn’t realize that his neurotic intellec-tual relativism has turned him into acowering mouse, an emasculated, anti-social loser who never catches on to thefact that he should just get over it. Thepoint Dostoyevsky is making is thatknowledge must be useful.

Although the great minds more than ahundred and forty years ago warnedagainst it, this is what the AmericanUniversity has become. All its depart-

ments have become dilute because theylack an understanding of what makesthem valuable. They no longer have avision of education and of their depart-ment’s place in that vision to guide themin their actions, and so they have beentrying to doublethink its way back tomeaningful existence. We have substi-tuted names and dates (because they arerecorded and valuable to the conqueror)for different visions of history, both instyle and in content. We tear down thetraditional version of the founding of

America for one in which abeautiful and lovingnation of peace isdestroyed by the whitedevil. It is no longer thepoint that these seekers offreedom and indepen-dence struggled to survive;it is important only thatthey brought smallpoxwith them. And again,Thomas Jefferson hadslaves, so what could he

possibly have to say? Themotivation has not been to fix thedepartment, it has been to destroy theold department.

Though to the outsider it would seemas though these ideas have made the var-ious departments of the university neu-rotic and destructive, and its studentscorrespondingly apathetic to all thingsand all times, and the only passion andsurety any of them can summon is in theact of attacking belief, the modernAmerican university has neverthelessbeen left to continue its current pathunchecked. So then, back to the question at hand:Upon what justification is the existenceof the modern university predicated?What are the rational arguments for itsusefulness? For its function? To wheredoes it look to define itself, and the edu-cation it provides, as things of value?

The answers are none, there aren’t any,there aren’t any and nowhere.

The problem of the modern universitylosing a sense of place and function isn’tthat teachers go home and are forced todrink their dilemma away, rather it isthat the quality of the product they offerhas been in continual decline. The insti-tutional neurosis has made what is

Dostoyevsky’s “Notes FromUnderground,” is a portraitof what the modern intel-lectual must not become,the slight wrong of beingbumped as he walks down

the road sends the narrator into two years of rela-tivistic indecision, hungering after vengeance, butnever able to convince himself of the justice of it.

continued on page 20

15The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

APRIL 2003

�PUBLIC POLICY

IT's official. Poor people need cars.“The shortest route between a poor per-son and a job is that afforded by a privateautomobile.” After all, there are so manybusinesses, so many people – findingone another becomes a numbers game.Job hunters may find work among mas-sive industrial complexes on giant lots.They might find it at the mall in thecenter of an ocean of parking.Perhaps they can find it in one of thetrendy shops along the street of theweek.

Of course, none of these places areliable to be anywhere near each other,or the job-hunter's home. So theymust flit rapidly from place toplace,alighting half-blindly at manysecluded locations around town, likea resume-carrying honeybee.

In a car, this is effortless. Simplicityitself. But dare to attempt it on tran-sit, and the vast majority of the day iseaten away waiting at bus stops.Yet to debate this with many of those in

academia is to be met with cries of dis-believing outrage. In the halls of plan-ning, public transit is a holy altar, theirsacred savior. To many who would planthe cities of tomorrow, the hatred of theprivate auto has become a holy crusade,eclipsing the real problems they set outto solve.

There are real issues with the way ourcities are built today. Arterials breakapart the foot traffic of the city. Childrenfind themselves needing to be driven orbused to schools visible from theirdoorsteps. Separate land uses and zon-ing regulations written into codedecades ago ( to keep upwardly mobileblacks out of ivory-tower neighbor-hoods) force trip lengths ever upward.

For many of those who study our com-munities, nothing would be more pleas-ing than the return of the streetcar.Before the auto, the streetcar was thepinnacle of personal transportation.Streetcars allowed cities to expand inspidery webs following the track, granti-ng mobility to all.

But the streetcars were killed by pro-

tectionism and unions, felled by liberalcost freezes intended to protect the peo-ple from rising prices, and by union reg-ulations prohibiting the split shifts need-ed to adjust availability of drivers to fitdemand.

Today, the planners lavish praises onthe streetcar's sexily seductive modern

descendant, light-rail. Progressive-minded academics rave about the clean-liness of the MAX and similar projects,ignoring the inconvenient fact that themajority of light rail projects create morenet pollution than their riders would cre-ate in automobiles. While the train itselfmight be sexily electric and whisper-quiet, the power plant that belches outthe prodigious river of electricity onwhich the train runs may be far lessclean. Plus, the army of smokingmachines which built the line tends toleave its own mark.

Modern progressive planners love tomake lofty statements about how auto-mobiles “don't pay their full cost to soci-ety”. The same logic does not, however,apply to transit, which receives freepasses for its massive public costs. EveryMAX trip you or I make costs someunderprivileged person somewherebetween $12 to $20 dollars in subsidies.This is worse than bus farebox recoveryrates, which hover near 25%. (That is,for every $1.25 fare you buy, the publicmust somehow cough up an additional$3.75.)

When these academics engage in theirhobby of calculating speculative esti-

mates of the auto's “cost to society”, Ifind myself curious as to whether theaccelerated road damage created byheavier vehicles – such as large citybuses – is being included in their modelsof civic fiscal responsibility. The cobble-stone of our own transit mall's fast decayand shattering, for instance, has beenattributed to the pounding of the heavytires of Tri-Met buses. Lately, it has been discovered that par-

ticulate emissions are an unexpectedlynotorious component of urban air pol-lution. And where do these particulatescome but from the stacks of dieselengines – such as those that power ourbus fleet? I hear few attempts to calcu-late the “cost to society” of great lum-bering buses filled with people.

A common element of discussions andplanning literature is an overwhelmingneed to reduce VMT – Vehicle Miles

Travelled. VMT is the new voodoo doll ofmodern city planning. VMT equals prob-lems, so reduce VMT. But VMT is NOTthe problem, merely one of many corre-lating variables of a galaxy of complexissues. One can create a horribly inacces-sible, dysfunctional transportation sys-tem fraught with problems – whilesimultaneously reducing VMT. One canmake a place more convenient, moreaccessible, less polluted, and less frag-mentary, and yet increase the VMT onwhich those same problems are blamed.

One day, I dream that children will beable to walk to schools nearby, that thecity air will be clean and fresh, and peo-ple will be free to travel cheaply, effort-lessly and quickly to wherever they mayneed or want to go. But maybe, justmaybe, that will mean the fulfillment ofanother, older, recently disfavoredAmerican Dream: A car in every garage..

�

The irrational distain for the automobile . BY JUSTICE MCPHERSON

Lost In Traffic

portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator

APRIL 2003

16

�NEWS

A case of your favorite beer may soon bemore expensive. A new group in Oregonis calling for a dramatic increase in thestate’s beer tax. The group, called the“It’s Time for a Dime Committee,” isdrafting a bill that would raise the taxfrom $2.60 a gallon to $35.64 a gallon,an increase of 1,271 percent. Oregon’sbeer tax has not been increased since1977 and is currently the fifth lowest inthe nation.

Oregon’s beer tax, at less than a pennyper 12-ounce bottle, would be increasedto 10 cents, substantially more than thenational average of 2.51 cents per bottle.Moving quickly from the ranks of the lowtax states, Oregon’s alcohol wouldbecome the most heavily taxed in thecountry.

Nina Robart, former chairman of theOregon Coalition to Reduce UnderageDrinking and current organizer of the“Dime Committee,” recognizes that thepercentage of increase may appear high,but states that the actual cost to con-sumers is quite low.

Due to the rate of inflation since 1977,the value of the most recent increase, shesays, is insignificant. “It’s as if theincrease never happened.”

Robart believes that the currentresources available for youth alcohol anddrug treatment are insufficient. Shehopes higher prices will reduce alcoholconsumption and revenue collected fromthe new tax will fund state programsgeared toward prevention, treatmentand recovery.

She points to a February 2002 surveyconducted by the Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation that reports 78 percent ofOregonians favor an alcohol tax increaseto pay for programs aimed at preventingunderage drinking and increase treat-ment options.

“I am not against people drinking, butthey need to take responsibility for thefact that they support an industry thatnegatively affects state budgets andimpacts the lives of Oregonians.”

Not only would an increase help fundsocial programs, Robart says, but a 10cent increase in the price of beer would

reduce consumption between 1 and 3percent among average consumers, andbetween 10 to 15 percent among bingedrinkers.

John A. Charles, a senior policy analystat Cascade Policy Institute, does notbelieve that an increase in the beer taxwill accomplish what she hopes. “Sin

taxes,” he says, are not an effectivemethod for funding alcohol related pro-grams.”

Charles said Oregon’s tobacco tax rev-enue funds dozens of programs that havenothing to do with health, such as publictransit. “Only 4.41 percent is used fortobacco-related activities,” he added.Charles argues that it is unfair to tax the

majority of consumers who do not abusealcohol, for the problems caused by thefew who do. He believes that the legisla-ture should instead focus on methodsthat hold specific individuals account-able for the harm caused by inappropri-ate alcohol use, and “find ways to makespecific people pay for specific instancesof harm.”

Rob Drake, mayor of Beaverton andchairman of the Governor’s Task Forceon the Alcohol Beverage Industry,believes that “there are many hiddencosts to alcohol abuse,” and that anyincrease in the beer tax “would go a longway toward solving a big problem.”

In a deliberation on January 23 in

Salem, the task force discussed the pro-posed 10 cent increase but decided not tofully support it. In the wording of thefinal report adopted by the committee bya 7-5 majority vote, they “recommendthat the legislature review the need foran increase in privilege taxes on beerand wine.”

“The recommendation was not asstrong as a lot of us thought it shouldbe,” said Drake, but he believed anincrease of 10 cents was “excessive”.

Robart, who watched the deliberationfrom the audience, was pleased that anincrease was considered, despite the taskforce’s decision not to support the 10cent increase. In her view, given thenumber of people on the task force thatare active in the alcohol industry, “it wasa miracle that they mentioned theincrease at all.”

“The bill does not have a snowball’schance in the legislature,” said PaulRomain, a Portland lawyer and influen-tial lobbyist who has represented theOregon Beer and Wine DistributorsAssociation since 1983.

An increase in the beer tax, he says,would dramatically damage Oregon’smicrobrew industry, which “does nothave room to maneuver price wise.”

Robart believes that the negativeimpact of the increase on local breweriescould be avoided by attaching a compan-ion clause to the proposed bill thatwould exempt breweries that producedbelow a specified number of barrels ofbeer. But Romain contends that such a clause

poses constitutional problems. In a1984 case, Bacchus v. Dias, the courtfound that an excise tax in Hawaiiexempting sales of specified local bever-ages was unconstitutional. The courtfound that such an exemption “violatesthe Commerce Clause, because it hasboth the purpose and effect of discrimi-nating in favor of local products.”

While the companion clause Robartspeaks of would not only apply toOregon breweries, Romain states that 95percent of those exempted would be

Increasing the price of Grandpappy’s Hooch. JOE COON

The Beer Tax

continued on page 22

The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

APRIL 2003

17

�FOREIGN POLICY

SADDAM Hussein's reign of terror isabout to end. He will go quickly, but notalone: in a parting irony he will take theUnited Nations down with him.

Well, not the whole United Nations. The 'good works' part will survive, the

low-risk peace-keeping bureaucracieswill remain, the looming chatterbox onthe Hudson will continue to bleat. Whatwill die in Iraq is the fantasy of theUnited Nations as the foundation of anew world order. As we sift the debris ofthe war to liberate Iraq, it will be impor-tant to preserve, the better to under-stand, the intellectual wreckage of theliberal conceit of safety through interna-tional law administered by internationalinstitutions.

As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, aswe hear from the survivors able to speakfrom their own soil for the first time, letus not forget who was for this war andwho was not, who held that the moralauthority of the international communi-ty was enshrined in a plea for more timefor inspectors, and who marched against'regime change'. In the spirit of postwarreconciliation that diplomats are alwayseager to engender, we must not reconcilethe timid, blighted notion that worldorder requires us to recoil before roguestates that terrorise their own citizensand menace ours.

A few days ago Shirley Williams arguedon television against a coalition of thewilling using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded--like many of the millions who havemarched against military action--shemust surely have been moved into oppo-sition by an argument so convincing thatit overpowered the obvious moral casefor removing Saddam's regime.

No, for Baroness Williams (and manyothers), the thumb on the scale of judg-ment about this war is the idea that onlythe UN Security Council can legitimisethe use of force. It matters not if troopsare used only to enforce the UN's owndemands. A willing coalition of liberaldemocracies isn't good enough. If anyinstitution or coalition other than the

UN Security Council uses force, even as alast resort, 'anarchy', rather than inter-national law, would prevail, destroyingany hope for world order.

This is a dangerously wrong idea, anidea that leads inexorably to handinggreat moral - and even existential politi-co-military decisions--to the likes of

Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China,and France.

When challenged with the argumentthat if a policy is right with the approba-tion of the Security Council, how can itbe wrong just because communist Chinaor Russia or France or a gaggle of minordictatorships withhold their assent, shefell back on the primacy of 'order' versus'anarchy'.

But is this right? Is the United NationsSecurity Council the institution mostcapable of ensuring order and saving usfrom anarchy? History would suggestnot. The United Nations arose from theashes of a war that the League of Nationswas unable to avert. The League wassimply not up to confronting Italy inAbyssinia, much less--had it survivedthat debacle--to taking on NaziGermany.

In the heady aftermath of the Alliedvictory in the second world war, the hopethat security could be made collectivewas reposed in the United NationsSecurity Council - with abject results.During the Cold War the SecurityCouncil was hopelessly paralysed. The

Soviet empire was wrestled to theground, and Eastern Europe liberated,not by the United Nations but by themother of all coalitions, Nato.

Apart from minor skirmishes and spo-radic peace-keeping missions, the onlycase of the Security Council acting in aserious matter affecting world order dur-ing the Cold War was its use of force tohalt the North's invasion of South Korea--and that was only possible because theSoviets had boycotted the SecurityCouncil and were not in the chamber tocast their veto. It was a mistake they didnot make again. With war looming, theUN withdrew from the Middle East,leaving Israel to defend itself in 1967 andagain in 1973.

Facing Milosevic's multiple aggres-sions, the UN could not stop the Balkanwars or even protect its victims. Remember Sarajevo? RememberSrebrenica? It took a coalition of thewilling to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace wasmade in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UnitedNations. The rescue of Muslims inKosovo was not a UN action: their causenever gained Security Council approval. The United Kingdom, not the UnitedNations, saved the Falklands. This new century now challenges thehopes for a new world order in newways.

We will not defeat or even containfanatical terror unless we can carry thewar to the territories from which it islaunched. This will sometimes require that we use

force against states that harbour terror-ists, as we did in destroying the Talebanregime in Afghanistan.

The most dangerous of these states arethose that also possess weapons of massdestruction, the chemical, biological andnuclear weapons that can kill not hun-dreds or thousands but hundreds ofthousands.

Iraq is one such state, but there areothers. Whatever hope there is that they can be

Why the U.N. appears obsolete. BY RICHARD PERLE

United They Fall

continued on page 20

portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator

MARCH 2003

18

BOOKS & ARTS

While the inner cities and college cam-puses were a source of constant riotingand unrest during the sixties, countrytowns felt isolated from these problems.Geographic and cultural distance pro-tected rural communities against metro-politan social upheaval. However,American country-folkfaced a scourge muchworse than any civilrights protest or peacemarch could muster:hordes of muscular,drunken barbarians wereinvading their towns, raping theirwomen, creating havoc, and the localpolice were powerless to stop them. Themost unsettling part of these massiveattacks was that they were random andunprovoked. Sadistic motorcyclists,known as the Hell’s Angels, had norational reason to demolish small townsother than to satisfy their perverse anti-social needs.

After two teenage girls were gang-raped during one of the Hell’s Angelscross-country runs, the national presswent into a panic. Just about everymajor newspaper and magazine jumpedon the story of the demonic Hell’sAngels – a group that had before beenalmost entirely ignored by the mediaand the public at large. Although thegang operated primarily in California,the immense coverage of their misdeedsalarmed ordinary citizens all over thecountry.

Ironically enough, the Hell’s Angelsthrived on the publicity. Though vili-fied both on the air and in print, theoutlaw bikers were elevated to unreason-able levels of popularity. People wereshocked and titillated by the stories oftheir exploits. Other motorcycle clubsimmediately sought to be incorporatedinto the Hell’s Angels’ hierarchy. As

often happens in the United States, themedia capitalized on Americans’ fascina-tion with fear.

While most reporters were content tobase their news stories on police reportsand witness accounts, Hunter S.Thompson felt that it was necessary to

directly associate with the biker gang inorder to attain a real perspective on thewhole phenomenon. Despite the out-laws’ hostility and disdain for journal-ists, Thompson managed to befriendseveral members of the Hell’s Angels.For a year, he accompanied the gang ontheir runs, hung out with them in bars,and even invited them into his home.

This familiarity permitted Thompsonto gain an objective outlook on the exag-gerations of the group’s criminal behav-ior. As it turned out, the national newsmedia omitted crucial details in order tomaintain the image of the Hell’s Angelsas being composed of mindless, blood-thirsty beasts. For example, the infa-mous teenage gang-rape charges weredismissed when it became clear that thealleged victims had really been willingparticipants. This was never mentionedin any newspaper, even though thearrests continued to be referenced longafter the charges were dropped.

Nonetheless, Thompson does notattempt to represent the Hell’s Angelsas an unfairly persecuted group of nor-mal individuals. The tales of randomviolence, sexual assault, and narcoticssmuggling were all based in fact, butwere also blown out of proportion. Thebikers simply lived by a different set of

rules than the rest of society. An insultto any member was cause for physicalretaliation by the entire gang, and itdidn’t matter if the offender was a policeofficer. A woman who willfully had sexwith a Hell’s Angel was expected toextend the favor to all other members of

the gang, whether sheliked the idea or not.Swastikas and skulls weredisplayed to alienate reg-ular people, not to actual-ly signify a belief inSatanism or Fascism.

Drug dealing was not the primary mis-sion of the gang, but just another way tomake money. Therefore, the invasion ofrural towns was a by-product of theHell’s Angel’s code of conduct, ratherthan a goal in itself.

Regardless of his friendship with someof the most notorious Hell’s Angels,Thompson’s judgment of the gang israther harsh. While the mainstreammedia portrayed the bikers as savages,left-wing radicals glorified them as agroup of misunderstood revolutionaries.Thompson’s view is more realistic – theHell’s Angels realized that they wereostracized from regular civilization andenjoyed the freedom of being socialrejects. They didn’t have any vision forthe future, but just embraced their roleas outlaws. Along the way, the clubbought into their own hype of beingmodern-day versions of Jesse James andBilly the Kid. The bikers thought them-selves to be greater than they were - butin the words of Thompson, they reallywere just “the sons of poor men anddrifters, losers and the sons of losers.”

However, Thompson’s depiction of thegang is most likely somewhat biased,due to the animosity that later devel-oped between him and the organization.The Hell’s Angels increasingly became

Hell’s AngelsREVIEWED BY MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI

The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

APRIL 2003

19

public figures; everybody wanted to usethem for books, photographs and arti-cles, but they weren’t willing to com-pensate the club financially. Tensionsbuilt up when Thompson started beingviewed as just another person who want-ed to exploit the Hell’s Angels storywithout giving anything in return. Also, as anti-war sentiment rose to epic

proportions, a rift began to growbetween the gang and the liberal intel-lectuals that had been fascinated withthe bikers’ non-conformism. The Hell’sAngels were from a rough, working-class background and despised theupper-middle-class college crowd whoseemed to patronize them. In additionto this, the anti-war stance of the acade-mics and hippies infuriated the group,who saw the peace movement as cow-ardly and un-American. In someinstances, this conflict became violentwhen the Hell’s Angels clashed physi-cally with peacenik marchers. Hunter S.Thompson was firmly aligned withmany anti-Vietnam activists, which fur-ther agitated his troubled relationshipwith the gang.

Throughout the book Thompson isamazed that, despite their propensity forgiving beatings, he had never personallybeen “stomped” by any members of theHell’s Angels. As could be suspected,this streak of luck runs out at the endwhen the author is severely mauled bythe mob of bikers. According toThompson, the fight ensued suddenlyover a small disagreement – which isinsinuated to have occurred because ofeconomic and political differences. He issaved from the pounding at the lastminute before the gang “managed tofracture my skull or explode my groin.”The maximum leader of the Hell’sAngels, Sonny Barger, recounts theevent quite differently. According toBarger’s book, Thompson had beenannoying the group for quite some timeand finally crossed the line when he told

the infamous “Junkie George” that hewas a punk for slapping his wife andkicking his dog. Thompson’s standagainst animal- and spousal-abuse is leftout of his own adaptation of the story,but not because of modesty – he proba-bly just didn’t want to be known forev-er as the idiot who insulted a Hell’sAngel.

Barger also discounts many ofThompson’s other tales, such as theHell’s Angels peculiar initiation ritualin which they allegedly urinated anddefecated on new members of the club.If we are to believe Barger, Hunter S.Thompson was guilty of the same sensa-tionalism that he scorned the conven-tional media for. On the other hand,Sonny Barger wrote his book as a mid-dle-aged man with serious health com-plications; he may have just been deny-ing the wilder stories in order to saveface for his family and his legacy. Thebitterness between Thompson and theHell’s Angels is one of the few thingsthey agree on. Barger describes HunterS. Thompson as a “skinny hick,” whileThompson ends his book with an angryquote: “‘Exterminate all the brutes!’”

Although Thompson’s literal accuracyis disputable, one should keep in mindthat he is cherished for being the “cre-ator of the aggressively subjectiveapproach to reporting,” known as GonzoJournalism – in which personal inter-pretation is more important that thefacts. Hell’s Angels: A Strange andTerrible Saga is the first text inThompson’s study of sub-culturaldynamics. The book isn’t quite as out-landish as the legendary Fear andLoathing in Las Vegas, but it offers thesame fascinating glimpse into America’sbizarre underworld. �

The pen is mightierthan the sword?Probably not but youcould poke a damneye out!

Join the PortlandSpectator and gain valueable job experi-ence while earningthe contempt of yourfellow students.

Send an email to:[email protected]

IF YOU CAN’T BEAT ‘EMJOIN ‘EM

offered confused, and without worth. Anunending stream of factlets linkedtogether by hedging, second guessing,and “statements in quotes.” The result isthat the modern American universitysends its graduates out into the worldwith a knowledge base that consistentlytests lower than high school graduates offifty years ago. And this is inexcusable. If all things are relative, then the justifi-cation for education itself breaks down.Education becomes another hollowvalue. With no standard, the relativismchampioned in universities devalues theargument for its pursuit. If all things areequal, then ignorance is the same asknowledge. Education then becomes a

directionless meandering through theworld’s inheritance of ideas. But afterall, why bother? It’s all the same any-way. The modern vision of ‘education’ is func-tionless and empty. It has become noth-ing more than an extension of ignorantadolescence. The students accept theuniversity’s vision, or lack thereof, of anultimate goal for education, yet share thesame bias that education is still some-how categorically good, but without agoal towards which to work, and thestandards, whether historical or other-wise, with which to measure one’s levelof failure of success, in pursuit of thatgoal, there is no value in striving.

This is what the modern American uni-versity gives us: An extension of adoles-cence ending in apathy and an aversionto knowledge and self-improvement.This is the gift of the modern academy.It’s time to do better. The future genera-tions of American intellectuals aredepending on it. And for those who havefed steadily on a diet of this modern edu-cation, I must say that I realize that theprevious statement is an intellectuallyunsupportable value judgment tendingtoward belief. It is also however, true.

portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator

APRIL 2003

20

The Death of Eduction in America Continued from page 16

horns, constantly honking. Almost everycar that went by honked its horn. It wasdifficult to hear amidst the small groupof people cheering and the cars honking.I kept thinking about the horns, andthen it hit me: these people have lives.Many of the anti-war protesters wereangry at a system they blamed for theirproblems. This was evidenced in manyof their signs advocating economicequality that had nothing to do withprotesting the war. I guessed that manyof them did not live 9 to 5 lives. It helpedto explain how all of the neighborhoodassociation people and middle class fam-ilies could not make it, and also howmany of them could stay out until 2 amto get maced and arrested. Pro-war pro-testers however, appeared to belongmore to a group of people that had a liv-ing to make, a mortgage, and a family.

This also explained the volume of honk-ing. It was around 5pm, when everyonewas returning home from work.Anti-war protesters create an insulating

atmosphere where they can see nothingbut support and feel extra good aboutthemselves and their causes. Thisexplains their frequent shock or horrorwhen they meet someone with a differ-ent view. That’s what all the “cheeringfor themselves” was about. No oneexternal to them was supporting them.They support each other. They are alsoable to get out more. They have a histo-ry of political activism and a tie to an erawhere such actions were glorified.

I understand now why there were somany people out in force against the war,and so few people out in support of it.It’s the principle of the silent majority.In this case, the majority is silent enough

to go about their lives without making ascene, and enough of a majority to gar-ner effective public support for a war inIraq to remove a brutal dictator. Whilethe people of Iraq were cheering, peoplein Portland were protesting. There wassomething basically wrong with it.Iraqi’s could eat. They were free. Andpeople in Portland were outraged. It’s soeasy for well-fed people to cry for peace.The more they protest, the angrier andmore resolute the silent majoritybecomes, and the less people care. Aslong as the silent majority is in power,these protests are just cool clips to watchon the evening news. �

Walking with Dinosaurs Continued from page 11

persuaded to withdraw support or sanc-tuary from terrorists rests on the cer-tainty and effectiveness with which theyare confronted. The chronic failure ofthe Security Council to enforce its ownresolutions--17 of them with respect to

Iraq, the most recent, 1441, a resolutionof last resort--is unmistakable: it is sim-ply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing.Far from disparaging them as a threat toa new world order, we should recognise

that they are, by default, the best hopefor that order, and the true alternative tothe anarchy of the abject failure of theUnited Nations. �

Richard Perle is a resident fellow at AEI

The Beer Tax Continued from page 17

portlandspectator.com The Portland Spectator

APRIL 2003

22

LETTERS

Spectator’s Intellectual High Horse

Dear Portland Spectator,

The Portland Spectator’s recent expo-sure of preacher Dan at first glanceseemed to be a logically constructedargument that exposed the hypocrisy of students’ collective love for the right offree speech and their disrespect of Dan’sright to speak.

In addition, SJ Campbell exposed theusual antics that go on between whatCampbell calls ignorant students inenlightened -student- clothing and Dan.Campbell correctly points out that Danhas a firm grasp of his subject and thestudents struggle to come up with a goodone-liner at best.

What the spectator and Campbell missis that the argument isn’t about freespeech or the depth of knowledge aboutthe bible students may or may not have.Certainly for some bystanders Dan’s“speeches” are adversarial, demeaning,or otherwise offensive. However, Ibelieve that for almost all PSU studentsand other bystanders the argument isreally about the right of one individualto use public land for the purpose of

shouting his beliefs as loudly as possible.The consequence of which is to destroythe ability of the public, who pay for the park, to enjoy it. Formany park users, a brief lunch, cup of coffee outside, or smoke break enjoyedin a relatively quiet setting is an enjoy-able and even necessary break in the day.To have that opportunity removed on adaily basis by a single individual whoapparently doesn’t have a job to go to,therefore not paying the taxes necessaryto maintain the very park he uses as hispersonal podium, is unacceptable.

It isn’t anti-first amendment to placelimits on free speech. Since the firstSupreme Court sat the freedom of speechhas been continuously refined in order toprotect individuals while at the sametime providing society-at-large somedegree of cohesion, security and dignity.For example, inciting a crowd to violenceis not protected speech, religious speechin publicly owned buildings is tightlycontrolled, and the courts routinelyreview cases that push the limits.

It isn’t ignorance to not know as muchabout the Christian bible as a street

preacher. It isn’t unreasonable toexpect others to refrain from shoutingtheir beliefs Monday through Friday in apublic area that is used as a park for all to enjoy.

What is reasonable is to expect peoplelike Dan to behave in a respectful waytowards others. What is reasonable is toallow Dan to speak his mind in the samemanner everyone else does in the parkblocks, at a conversational volume. Andwhat is reasonable is that the publicshould be able to enjoy what they pay forwithout being screamed at.In the future, SJ Campbell and others at

the Spectator should get off their intel-lectual high horse and realize that some-times something is just annoying-- plainand simple.

Dan’s ramblings may be the stuff ofgreat debates but there is no intellectualdebate going on when those of us whowould like to enjoy the park are simplyshouted at.

Sincerely,Casey Flesch

Well Said

In this age of so-called political cor-rectness, and the subsequent monitoringof what should be each individual's rightto freely express their beliefs, feelings,opinions, and thoughts by the selfappointed

Thought Police, it was refreshing toread an editorial which is a reminder ofthe real purpose of the FirstAmendment. What is at the heart of ourright to Freedom of Speech is thepremise all individuals are entitled tofreely express thoughts, ideas, beliefs,and opinions, regardless of whetherwhat is being communicated is seen as

offensive or unenlightened. The right toexpress oneself far outweighs anyrestrictions the Thought Police mayattempt to place on individuals exercis-ing the same right which motivates theactions of these very pretentious people,hypocrites who have given themselvespermission to engage in the very samebehavior they claim to oppose. "TheNew Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce,the former leader of the Los Angeleschapter of NOW, is a compelling dis-course regarding the damage the

Thought Police are deliberately andmaliciously attempting to impose on an

individual's right to disagree with anyparticular line of thinking deemed inap-propriate by certain groups in this coun-try.

With regard to the First Amendment,the Thought Police are the real enemies,not the individuals exercising the rightwhich was given the first priority by ourforefathers at the time the Bill of Rightswas written.

Your reminder of what the FirstAmendment really stands for is appreci-ated.

Ed Cavin

from Oregon.Despite the doubts of those opposed to

the bill, Nina Robart and her “DimeCommittee” are not dissuaded. In thecoming weeks they hope that interested

legislators, which Robart declined toidentify by name, will assist in draftingthe proposed increase, and submit thebill to the legislature. �

The Beer Tax Continued from page 17

The Portland Spectator portlandspectator.com

APRIL 2003

23

HEALTHY BODY SICK MIND BY SEAN H. BOGGS

The Right Opinion on the War in IraqI am for the war in Iraq

Yeah, I was one of those who stood andshowed my support for the Americantroops in Iraq. I stood with the five otherpeople in Oregon who also felt the sameway as I do. I stood toe to toe with thosefoul-smelling protestors who feltthe need to cause a disturbance. Ispat in one of their faces and toldthem that after Iraq – they werenext. They walked away after I saidthat. I showed them.

I saw the giant crowd that tried totake over the streets of Portlandand I couldn’t help but not care. Idon’t need to care because I am aveteran. That is right folks, I, Seanam a veteran. I have fought for mycountry, and died trying. So I don’tgive a napalm fuck about other peo-ple’s feelings if they are not thesame as mine. Some may call me a crazy,one-testicle, SUV driving, deer huntinghomophobic, but actually, I am just aloyal Republican.

The Iraqi people need to be freed fromtheir dictator. Americans need to die inorder to protect the Iraqi people.Americans need to die in order to keepSaddam Hussein from killingAmericans.

This is not about oil, but about free-dom. Just like Viet-fucking-Nam. Acountry is screwed up, and only usAmericans can fix it. We fixed Germany,France, Afghanistan, Canada and even-tually Iraq will be fixed as well. Our owncountry is not as important. Our chil-dren’s education is less important thanthe Iraqi children’s education.

Bomb them, shoot them, do whateverwe can. One day they will use chemicalweapons and we will all die. I don’t knowabout you, but I would rather die fight-ing for another country than fighting formy own country.

I am not one of those who take theirissues and force other people to believethem like those fucking protestors. I

stand up for what is right, and may Goderase your asshole if you do not agreewith me. We will win this war and wewill the next. We will keep winning everywar that we start until the only enemiesleft are ourselves – and we will win thattoo, but…

I am also against the war in Iraq

Yeah, I was one of those who sat in themiddle of 3rd and Burnside. I burned anAmerican flag and ate the fucking ashes.I threw water bottles at those fuckingpigs who tried to stop us. Goddamn cop-pers never know when to fuck off. I toldall of those pro-war nancies that war is

wrong and that I would kick their ass forpeace. I’m a peaceful guy who will beatup and vandalize anything that gets inmy way for demanding peace. Give mepeace or you’re dead. I was a part of that giant crowd who tookover the streets of Portland and caused

the mayor to crap herself withshit. I sat in the middle of thefreeway and yelled at peoplewho tried to drive by me.

“Hey, you are not allowed todrive because I am against thewar!” I yelled. Some people toldme that what I was saying didn’tmake any sense. But I slit theirthroats and now they ain’t talk-ing shit. I jerk-off in your gener-al direction you jerk-off. I am a man who does not shave

his face. I only wear vintageclothing and I only listen to

bands that play music that nobodyunderstands. I have a girlfriend whonever wears a bra and who needs toshave her pits and crotch. We are bothvegans. We don’t abuse anything thatcomes from the land, except pot. Pot isgood. We make love instead of war andwe don’t wash our hair. We are conven-tional Democrats.

Protesting is freedom of speech. I havethe right to say what I want and part ofmy right to speak freely includes sittingon I-5. I can interrupt traffic because ofmy right to speak.

George Bush is an asshole and war iswrong. I will take my peace believingbeliefs and block traffic because thatmakes sense to me. I will do all thisinstead of volunteering at a library or atsome daycare. I will do all this instead ofgoing to school so that I can make a dif-ference with my mind rather than mystupid ass sitting in the middle of a fuck-ing street. Fuck war. �

Por

tland

Trib

une

Pic

ture

s

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that theyfought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beach-head or the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- thatthere is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and theuse of force for conquest. - Ronald Reagan

portlandspectator.com

SATIRE

Iraqitv GUIDEMONDAYS

AFTERNOONS

TUESDAYS

LATE NIGHT

Factor

Every Tuesday, four residentsof Baghdad denouncePresident Saddam in public.See if they’ll be able to survivethe torture chamber. The win-ner gets painless execution.

A L L M Y CHILDREN-epsidode 12,145Uday Hussein commits anothersadistic rape. Will Saddamfrown?

BAGHDAD 90210-episode 8Ahmed found two slices of bread.He thought he was lucky. But thetwo slices belong to the Fatwagang. Now he is in trouble.

LATE NIGHT WITH SADDAMThe most entertaining programon Iraqi television, bringing youthe comic stylings of Saddamevery night as he interviewscelebrities. This week Saddam is out butMICHAEL MOORE is filling in.

Saddam