Like much of the country, Portland saw protests after Trump’s election that closed highways. Political strife escalated again in April when the city canceled its Rose Festival because of threats from self-identified anti-fascists that violence would break out if the Republican float was not removed.

The tension in Portland skyrocketed May 26 when Jeremy Joseph Christian, a 35-year-old vocal conservative-extremist, stabbed three men on a light-rail train. Christian was reportedly screaming at two black women, one wearing a hijab. Three men stepped in to defend the women, surrounding Christian. He brandished a knife and two of the men were killed while the third was stabbed in the neck and survived.

No matter what the circumstance, this was a tragedy and a shock to Portland. Nobody — liberal or conservative — wants to see political discourse turn into public violence. This instance should have served as a wake-up call to Portland. Obviously, the political climate has gotten out of hand.

Unfortunately, instead of capitalizing on this an opportunity to learn from mistakes and unite the community, Portland’s mayor Ted Wheeler has answered a physical attack with an ideological one.

After the stabbings, Mayor Wheeler called on the federal government to revoke the permit for a Trump Free Speech Rally set for June 4. He also asked the federal government to deny the permit for a Portland March Against Sharia set on June 10. The City of Portland had already refused the permits.

According to CNN, Wheeler said “My main concern is that they are coming to peddle a message of hatred and of bigotry. They have a First Amendment right to speak, but my pushback on that is that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Mayor Wheeler doesn’t seem to understand the First Amendment very well.

Despite modern misconception, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. This is why the ACLU stood up for the KKK in the past, and why they stood up against Wheeler with a post on Twitter. The few exceptions there are to the First Amendment usually have to incite direct violence face-to-face, called “fighting words.”

Even if these rallies had been hate groups and Wheeler had a legitimate reason to believe they would have disrupted the community the Supreme Court has previously ruled that it is the government’s job to protect the free speech of those whose ideas incite violence, not let the mob shut down their rights.

However, neither of these groups Wheeler attacked ever intended to incite hatred or violence.

The Portland March Against Sharia stood up to his accusations on Facebook: “Our March Against Sharia includes all religions, genders, sexual orientations, and walks of life. What a beautiful thing it is for such a diverse group of Americans to be able to come together in such a divisive political time, to unify behind such fundamental human rights.”

The post maintains that the group is not “alt right” and only “standing up for the protection of those most vulnerable in our society.”

At a time when all other politics are tearing us apart, you would think that standing against Sharia law — an extremism driving people out of their homes and attacking innocent civilians — would be the one thing that everyone could unite over. Instead, Wheeler has made this issue a partisan one, and the march will be held in Seattle instead.

The Trump Free Speech Rally’s Facebook page describes it as “an uplifting experience to bring back strength and courage to those who believe in freedom.”

Christian attended a previous free speech rally by the same organizers, and footage showing him giving a Nazi salute there had fed into Wheeler’s controversy. Joey Gibson, the rally organizer, told CNN “Jeremy Christian has nothing to do with us. He hated us, he threatened me. We did everything we could to kick him out. We didn’t want him with us.”

Liberals are always diligent in reminding us that the actions of a few radicals are not enough to judge all of Islam. This lesson should be applied to conservatives as well. Just because one conservative is an extremist prone to violence doesn’t mean we can judge them all as hateful.

In the end, the rally was held in Portland. The organizer held a moment of silence for the two men who died and asked the crowd to avoid violence. Unfortunately, Wheeler had already done the damage by loudly proclaiming the rally as hate speech. The rally itself stayed calm, but afterwards, they clashed with anti-fascist protest groups. The city responded with tear-gas and 14 arrests.

Instead of prosecuting these rallies, politicizing tragedy to shut down the views he doesn’t share and creating more polarization in his city, Mayor Wheeler should have used them as a platform to find common ground. He could have attended the rallies and showed his conservative citizens that he is their mayor too. Even better, he could have given a speech at the rallies urging people to come together as a community and overcome their political differences with open discourse.

Unfortunately, there are too many politicians in modern America like Ted Wheeler who don’t understand the need to come together despite differences. These politicians would rather make every issue a partisan one and shut down competing views than confront issues head on and stand tall as the leader of their community.

Next election, instead of blindly voting for an incumbent or the representative of your chosen party, ask yourself which politician will be brave enough to facilitate real dialogue and stand up for the rights of everyone regardless of political opinion.

The post Greene: Rally clash in Portland is another iteration of the fight for free speech appeared first on Emerald Media.

After Trump’s election and Brexit last year, right-wing populism seemed to be on the rise worldwide, and this month all eyes were on France as the National Front’s candidate Marine Le Pen made it into the second and final round of the nation’s presidential election. In the end, Le Pen lost, providing relief for liberals worried about the success of the European Union and a blow to those of us hoping to see the French take back their sovereignty.

The loss was not surprising. What is shocking was that Le Pen got 34 percent of the vote — despite coming from a party known for racist rhetoric, xenophobia and holocaust denial.

“[National Front] is created to be an extreme statement, not a governing party,” said Craig Parsons, a UO political science professor and European politics expert. “Everyone in the more mainstream political space in France has committed pretty publicly to never aligning, never touching, never dealing with the National Front.”

So how did an untouchable party get so close to the presidency?

First, Le Pen moved the party into the mainstream by distancing herself from her right-wing radical father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the National Front in 1972. She also took on more mainstream concerns, such as job security and social benefits. By the end of the campaign, Le Pen coined herself the “Protector of the French.”

Le Pen built her campaign on two major issues transforming the social, economic and physical landscape of France: the European Union and immigration.

The EU has been opening borders to enable a free flow of goods, services, capital and people since the early 1950s. At first, it started the noble quest with only six countries.

“The ambition of the European project was to create this free-flowing, cosmopolitan, everybody-get-along-with-everybody-else space,” Parsons said. “[The EU] is great for higher-educated, cosmopolitan people. Europe is your playground; you move around; you learn all sorts of languages; it’s all fabulous stuff. [But] it’s — at the very least — not as good for poorer and less-educated people, and depending on how you analyze it, it might actually be bad.”

The negative effects of the EU for poorer European citizens were engorged when Eastern Europe was reluctantly let in the club.

“The EU was always going to be sort of a hard-sell, and it’s actually really amazing that it’s gone as far as it has, but it began to run into real problems … The biggest thing was letting in Eastern Europe,” Parsons explained.

It was never about Eastern Europe being bad, but Eastern Europeans have very different traditions from the rest of Europe, and the expansion now has the EU bordering several nasty war zones. The countries also are poorer, which makes them prime real estate for businesses that can afford to move production. Sound familiar? This is the same story as globalization taking jobs away from America and giving them to Mexico, except the EU is facilitating — even encouraging — the move.

This expansion has also opened the door for a refugee crisis — the nail in the EU’s coffin. Many politicians in Europe refused to take on refugees. This forced fewer, smaller areas to bare the weight of the crisis, resulting in more dangerous conditions and extreme culture clashes. As European citizens watch Germany, which accepted an unprecedented number of refugees and saw crime rise, it isn’t surprising countries like France are afraid of the EU’s open border policy.

Immigrants also compete for jobs with unskilled workers. The competition isn’t severe, but in a country like France, where jobs are limited by a high payroll tax and firing regulations, employers are already outsourcing jobs and relying on automation.

“What France desperately needs is some radical change to the way it regulates its economy,” Parsons said.

Perhaps leaving the EU would be the shock to the system France needs to force itself into making some real changes.

Parsons also thinks the media has exaggerated the refugee crisis. Most refugees just want to settle down and work hard as productive citizens in safe areas.

On the other hand, you can’t wish the world into a perfect place.

“Bringing in a whole ton of people from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan — places that have had really awful fights — is going to have an effect on security and [create] a culture clash,” Parsons said.

Parsons also points out that these European countries are already inundated with immigrants, some of whom haven’t been received very well and then, because of poor treatment, get radicalized. Their radicalization just creates more distrust and anxiety from Europeans. This perpetuates a cycle of seemingly justifiable abuse on both ends.

So, perhaps politicians like Le Pen are sensationalizing the issue, but there is also some real validity to these concerns, especially with a situation like the EU in which the borders across countries are not just unregulated but practically nonexistent.

Immigration isn’t the only reason a country might want to leave the EU either.

What was once 28 separate countries, each with its own regulations and traditions, is now akin to the United States of Europe — often with even less freedom given to the countries that states have.

This takes quite a bit of sovereignty away from France and its fellow countries and puts an awful lot of power in the hands of this super government that most citizens don’t quite understand. It’s still run by elected representatives, of course, but these Parliament members are elected based on individual countries concerns, with little thought on how they will work within the EU.

Most people say that if a radical like Le Pen was elected and took France out of the EU, Europe would collapse financially, and the rest of the world would be, as Parsons puts it, on a “permanently downward trajectory.” Especially with someone like Le Pen, who didn’t seem to have much of a plan for a post-EU France.

The EU won’t be falling apart at Le Pen’s hand, and it might not be happening this year or in this decade, but its situation is precarious at best. As more sovereignty is lost and refugees are imposed, European citizens are going to be looking closely at Britain, which was brave enough to take the first leap. In the short term, Brexit has caused a mess, but once Britain inevitably rebounds, other countries will see this as a sign of hope, eventually making the choice to leave the EU more and more appealing.

Perhaps instead of forcing a weak glue, the EU should consider itself a short-run but beautiful experiment and start planning a more graceful exit — one that keeps its more positive progress and lessens the effect its collapse will have on the world.

Alternatively, if the powers-that-be really feel the EU is best for the world, then they should take steps towards appeasing the little people. Meet the opposition half way. Then the French won’t feel the need to vote for the National Front, and we don’t have to risk another Brexit.

The post Greene: Le Pen lost; here’s what that means appeared first on Emerald Media.

The United Nations’ Commission on the Status of Women “is the principal global intergovernmental body exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.” They are considered “instrumental in promoting women’s rights, documenting the reality of women’s lives throughout the world and shaping global standards on gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

Like most government boards, this commission doesn’t really do that much. In fact, most people didn’t even know it existed until Saudi Arabia was elected to a four-year term as one of the 45 commission members on April 19. The same Saudi Arabia where the gender gap was ranked 141 out of 144 countries in 2016. The irony of this was not lost on the internet, which exploded at what they saw as blatant injustice and hypocrisy.

As per UN tradition, the voting process was done in secret; however, analysis shows that at least five European countries voted in favor of the appointment. This has caused major strife in Europe, where the refugee crisis has left many women feeling unsafe and unprotected by their governments. Many of these fears have been validated by an alarming number of attacks on women in the streets and by authorities in multiple European countries advising women not to go out at night alone.

This culture clash seemed to have hit its peak (at least in media coverage) around New Year’s 2016, but Saudi Arabia’s appointment to the CSW has brought back a lot of those feelings of betrayal. Citizens across Europe have been demanding to know how their governments voted. Ireland, Sweden and Norway have all refused to reveal their position, despite facing political backlash. Belgium has admitted voting yes, and Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel even came out with a formal apology, saying he regretted the decision.

Abdullah Alshabanah, a second-year student at UO from Saudi Arabia, said he was surprised to hear Saudi Arabia was selected for the commission because most people associate the country with their guardianship system dictating women are not permitted to work, travel, marry or get medical attention without permission from a male guardian.

Alshabanah disagrees with this perception of his home.

“Unfortunately, the media negatively promoted my county regarding women and many other issues,” Alshabanah said. “There might be a large number of countries in which they are far [more] advanced with women’s rights than my country, but people more often misjudge Saudi Arabia.”

He cites many ways Saudi Arabia has improved its treatment of women. 

“Women are equally paid, 60 percent of higher education students are women, they have the right to vote, they are members of the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, and most importantly, they are respected by the community,” Alshabanah said. “Also, Saudi women no longer need male permission to receive services … It is true it is not enough and women deserve more, but things take time.”

Alshabanah particularly hates people’s fixation on Saudi women not being allowed to drive. 

“There are more important issues that need to be discussed. People, mostly non-Saudi, look at it from their own perspective and measure it based on their culture without realizing the cultural differences,” Alshabanah said.

Some politicians seem to agree with Alshabanah’s take on the matter: Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand, tweeted, “It’s important to support those in the country who are working for change for women. Things are changing, but slowly.”

While many in the West find Saudi Arabia’s treatment of gender concerning, those worries don’t often don’t match up to how the issues are perceived in the Middle-East. (Creative Commons)

While this might have seemed obvious to a political insider like Clark, I  was completely taken aback by Alshabanah’s position on women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Despite never paying much attention to women’s rights in the Middle East — unless it was to shake my head in dismay — or to the UN other than the occasional skeptical observation, I was immediately up in arms over this appointment, just like the rest of the internet.

Alshabanah’s statement has opened my eyes to a fact I never even considered that none of the news coverage I read — from liberal, conservative, American, or European outlets — had input from Saudi women, the very people we are fussing about.

As a Western woman who has grown up surrounded by very specific ideas about what it means to be liberated, I’m sure the conditions women face in Saudi Arabia would seem oppressive and horrific to me. But I would be looking at the situation from a very one-sided cultural perspective, and I would be looking at the situation in a time vacuum, ignoring the conditions from only a decade or two prior.

Perhaps it is hypocritical to place Saudi Arabia on the Commission on the Status of Women, but the appointment isn’t really going to change our lives, and part of that commission’s job is to document the lives of women across the globe. Obviously, the lives of Saudi women are very misunderstood in the West, where our picture of the country seems tainted by a dated media representation.

Perhaps this is not the travesty we initially thought, but an opportunity to encourage more positive development and to create a more realistic perception of the country — good and bad.  

The post Greene: UN getting Saudi Arabia’s input on women’s rights: hypocrisy or illumination? appeared first on Emerald Media.

At the University of Oregon, we pride ourselves on tackling problems head on, creating not just informed students but critical citizens. But, while UO is addressing social issues like “cultural competency training,” food security and rape culture, there is a much more pressing issue facing the student body that we turn a blind eye to every day – door etiquette, or, more specifically, a lack thereof.

Doors are all over this campus. I literally have to pass through one every time I arrive in or leave a classroom. And walking into buildings? Forget about it! There are so many doorways in every building: whether we’re talking about Gerlinger Hall with five different haphazardly thrown on entrances, or the EMU taking inspiration from “every door is a new possibility” a little too literally.

Normally, this plethora of entrances wouldn’t be an issue. But something about college seems to wipe out all common sense; every day students are opening the door for peers still yards away, stuck holding the door for an impatient stampede of 450 students and waiting awkwardly around the entrance to Lillis for someone else – anyone else – to open their door.

This constant bewilderment only leads to unnecessary stress in our everyday lives, making cohesive campus door policy a matter of students’ mental health. UO needs to combat this ignorance by dedicating a portion of IntroDucktion to the topic, adding mandatory courses on doorway culture and leadership, and eventually creating a new major, possibly even a graduate program.

In the meantime, here is a quick crash course to help get the ball rolling.

Concerning the mechanics:

If you’re with friends, family or in a professional setting you might stand behind the door and hold it out like a butler of sorts, letting everyone else pass in front of you. Kissing ass around associates is one thing, but on your way to class push the door out behind you and always go first.

This rule might sound cold-hearted, but putting yourself before strangers, in some instances, is healthy and necessary. You never know when life is going to throw a curveball, and you need to make sure you’re on the right side of the door when it does.

Concerning radius of responsibility:

Most people tend to hold the door open for strangers more often than not–that is just the natural tendency of a welcoming campus. The issue is when students get too caught up in their quest for saint-status and start holding the door for people so far away they look like ants.

Nobody wants to be pressured into rushing–or god forbid, running–just for the honor of walking through a door you’re holding. There is a radius of responsibility, and it only extends as far as your wingspan. Basically, if someone isn’t walking up right behind you, ready to catch the door as you move on, they can take care of themselves.

Obviously, there are exceptions, like people with their arms full, the handicapped or frail looking elderly, and anybody you’re trying to start up a conversation with.

Concerning doubts:

Door etiquette can be tricky, especially when campus culture tends to make students feel like holding the door open is part of their contribution to a friendly environment, unintentionally creating a tedious and frustrating atmosphere.

When two people arrive at a door at the same time, who opens it? If there are two doors next to each other, and someone is opening one from the opposite side, do you awkwardly slip through theirs or open your own? If someone opens a door, but you’re not sure if it’s just for their friends or an open invitation, do you still walk through at the risk of making a fool of yourself? The confusion is endless.

Eventually these situations must be studied, but for now, when in doubt, just take responsibility for your own pathway obstruction and assume everyone else can do the same. Doors aren’t that heavy, opening them really doesn’t need to be the group activity we’ve made it into.

Concerning the bottom line:

UO has created a toxic culture around door protocol. Too much weight has been put on holding the door for others, and some people are so used to having doors chivalrously opened for them they’re slowly forgetting the proper technique.  

The only way we can fix this is by starting a conversation, changing our habits and indoctrinating new students with the proper guidelines. We can’t rely on or worry about strangers every time we need to pass through a door. This only leads to chasing our own tails around the building, never getting inside.

A strong open community is important in college; everyone needs a place they can turn to in times of stress, but this is also a time to learn independence, so let’s take charge of our own lives one door at a time.

Follow Patience on Twitter @PatienceAGreene

Video by Sam Sigman and Jannik Eheret 

The post Greene: A campus guide to door etiquette appeared first on Emerald Media.

With the sun shining bright, summer break being just around the corner and parties and shows every night, it’s easy to lose sight of what’s important during spring term. Studying is less appealing when the river is warm and friends are calling, and school tends to slip into the backseat as students rush into summer. But this year, instead of checking out early, try to finish off strong. Remember why we’re here in the first place: College can shape us into capable, efficient and downright impressive individuals.

Here are five ways you can kick your college game up a notch this spring term and build skills that will remain useful long after college.

1. Class participation

Professors pose questions to the class as a way to break the monotony of a lecture; they engage students and get them to analytically think through the material and reach their own conclusions. Don’t be afraid of this opportunity; embrace it! It’s a great way to build speaking skills, confidence and rapport with your professor.

Make it your goal to raise your hand for at least half the questions asked. No one expects you to have the perfect answer. Just try to come up with something substantial. Listen to the other students’ responses and try to come up with a comment that builds off what they said.

Class participation helps you understand the material better and teaches you to think on your feet.

2. Do the assigned readings

It is astonishingly easy to skim — even skip — assigned readings and still do solid in a class, or at least think you’re doing solid until finals come and you have to speed read three books. After discovering this convenient hole in the lecture system it’s tempting to push readings off. Don’t.

You should have picked this class because something about it interested you, so take the time to actually learn the material. This will help you retain the lessons longer, and you’ll be surprised how much more you get out of lectures.

You could even keep a list of authors you enjoy, something to go back to when looking for a good book.

3. Find a nerdy buddy

Study groups are a popular resource for students, but too often these turn into one person carrying the group. This kind of stuff. many times doesn’t induce deeper thought about the class.

Instead, try finding a friend to geek out with: someone who raises their hand and seems to be interested in the subject. Introduce yourself, sit next to them and ask if they’d like to get a cup of joe and discuss the material.

Casual conversation gives you a chance to digest the class as part of your everyday life and dig deeper into concepts that interest you. Not only will your friend serve the role of a study group, but it’s the equivalent of studying over a long period as opposed to cramming before an exam. You’ll remember the lessons longer and appreciate the class more.

4. Keep a diary

It sounds cheesy, like something more suited for teenybopper girls than college students, but journaling is a great way to reflect on your day, studies and general life. This introspective process is rejuvenating and the practice will sharpen your writing skills.

Research has suggested writing things down in your own handwriting reinforces your memory of it — this is why I always take notes by hand. Even then memory won’t last forever. Someday you’ll be thankful you kept a record of experiences and insights during college.

Make writing a part of your nightly or morning routine. Students less inclined to follow a schedule can carry their notebook and write on the go whenever the mood hits.

5. Think dialectically

College is full of people who think they’ve got it all figured out trying to indoctrinate you. Have an open mind, but remember only fools follow blindly. Recognize that every issue has several angles and approaches. It’s not about picking a “right” side, but recognizing the pros and cons of each and how they work together in the bigger picture.

Pay attention to your professors and that person preaching politics at a party, but take it with a grain of assault. Try to play devil’s advocate to every statement you hear. Be respectful, but push people’s ideologies to test their strength and better understand the subject at hand.

Make sure to think and converse with positive, not normative, statements. Put thought and weight behind everything you say, and think critically about all the information you ingest.

Mastering dialectic thought is difficult, but it will eventually build cognizance, problem solving, analyzing, and debating skills.

The post Greene: Five underrated ways to make the most of college appeared first on Emerald Media.

I’m not a smoker, but that didn’t stop my libertarian senses from rampaging when the Lane County Board of Commissioners raised the minimum tobacco purchasing age to 21.

The issue was not put to a citizen vote or even discussed much in the community prior to passing — it felt like the Man pulled the freedom out from under our pillows while we were sleeping and left a half-assed note behind making vague promises about “public health.”

Concerns for public health made sense when smoking was banned from schools, restaurants and bars, but buying cigarettes to smoke in the comfort of one’s own home seems a lot more like private health to me. It is right to protect children from their decisions; we are training them to our ideals. But once adulthood hits the training is over, and the government should not have any say on personal health matters. If Americans can choose to go to war at 18, then they should be able to light up.

But this is about more than the blatant degradation of rights — it’s about the injustice of allowing an addiction to grow and then punishing the population for it.

Sure, studies have shown that raising the smoking age will gradually decrease the amount of smokers, and logic dictates that taking tobacco purchasing rights away from 18-year-old seniors will keep it out of high schools, yada, yada.

The fact is, nine out of 10 cigarette smokers take their first drag before 18.

17 year olds who have been smoking in Lane County for years already are not going to quit, they just now have to wait not one, but four years before they can buy their own pack. Worse yet, 19 and 20 year olds who have been legally smoking for years are now going to be turned away at the counter.

It’s one thing for the government to limit smoking, but giving people free range to an addictive substance and then taking it away after they have become dependent will only serve to encourage illegal activities. Nobody expects police to fine a 20-year-old $50 for smoking; that would be outrageous. But often crime is prevented just by the fear of getting caught, and once someone gets away with one crime the next few look more and more inviting. Making a law just for people to break it is inviting a more casual attitude toward crime in general.

A clause that grandfathered in people already 18 when the law passed, letting them continue their purchases, would have helped soften this transition. This would still have cut down on smoking in the long term but made less impact on current smokers. This clause was proposed, but unfortunately not added.

With our freedoms under attack, 20 year olds suddenly being treated like children and the possibility of this law going state-wide, I was expecting protest. I was waiting to hear complaints in the hall, perhaps mini-riots at parties and rage-quitting in the drugstore. So far, I have been disappointed. Most people seem relatively uninterested or outraged for only a moment before growing bored, and some students are downright supportive of the health initiative.

Still, there is hope that come April 13, when the law is put in place, Lane County citizens will feel the impact and push back against the Man. It might be too late to change the law in Lane County, but our county is the state’s guinea pig and if we can prove that Oregonians won’t let the government trample on our rights, then perhaps Oregon will reconsider going statewide with the measure.

So when April 13 rolls around, make some noise. Call a representative, grab a group of friends and protest smoke by city hall, try to buy a pack and test whether the age limit is enforced, throw something. Stand on something tall, shake your fist high and let the man know — you can’t tread on us.

The post Greene: Cigarettes — a matter of public health or personal freedom? appeared first on Emerald Media.

One month ago, President Donald Trump tweeted “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” Hillary Clinton delivered a speech advocating for the private and political sector to take action regarding fake news: “So called fake news can have real world consequences. This isn’t about politics or partisanship; lives are at risk.” Melissa Zimdars, a liberal assistant professor, released a list of “fake news” websites to avoid that included a number of established conservative news sites such as Breitbart, the Blaze, the Independent Journal Review and the Daily Wire. In retaliation, Alex Jones’ InfoWars released a “fake news” list of their own. Google and Facebook, under pressure to crack down on fake news, banned a list of fake news websites from accessing their advertising services.

As technology becomes increasingly interactive, broadcasting opinions over the internet via social network sites, blogs, podcasts and independent news websites becomes easier and wider spread than ever before. We are being ushered into a new information age, one where the bias of individual journalists and the interests of mainstream media companies don’t have to limit the news and opinions available to the public. Stories or angles that might have gone against the mainstream agenda can now find their way to the public. Unfortunately, this also brings more competition, and as outlets vie with each other for the attention and trust of the public, ethical transparency can be clouded.

CNN has recently earned a reputation for sacrificing truth in the interest of competition. In an interview with Fox, Trump advocated for profiling, but in their coverage, CNN blatantly added the word “racial” to Trump’s statement. CNN was also called out for editing “Crooked” out of “Crooked Hillary” in one of Trump’s tweets, and was criticized for editing the first sentence out of a Clinton speech.

These were all done during the heated election. CNN had endorsed Clinton and was notoriously anti-Trump. Media taking sides during an election and reporting on issues with their chosen candidate in mind is expected, but honesty should always be the first priority, even in election season.

Richard Spencer, a radical alt-right leader, made a speech on Red Ice TV attacking the mainstream media. “Indeed one wonders if these people are people at all or instead some soulless golem animated by some dark power,” Spencer said. CNN then ran a segment that explicitly stated “Of Jews, Spencer said, ‘one wonders if these people are people at all, or instead some soulless golem.’” Never did the segment, or panel discussion on the issue, acknowledge that Jews were not the target of Spencer’s attack. This lie was then tweeted out by several other journalists who assumed CNN was a valid source.

Admittedly, Spencer is a bit of a devil in the liberal community. This is not surprising: he is considered a white supremacist and made references to Nazi Germany in this very speech, but that does not, and cannot, warrant blatant lies. If CNN wants to turn people against Spencer and his movement, they must do so with the truth; otherwise, it just serves to make a fool of the media.

In another instance, The Washington Times published an article about Alex Jones, the founder of the so aptly named news source InfoWars, a site notorious for conspiracy theories. The article quoted Jones as saying “Hillary Clinton ‘personally murdered and chopped up’ children.” Jones did say this, but the quote was taken entirely out of context. It was a hyperbole that he used to link to her foreign policy regarding ISIS and Syria.

Taking a quote out of context is not the same as editing or fabricating one, but it is just as dishonest. Alex Jones has a habit of baiting audiences with juicy and outrageous claims, but he often provides real insight into serious issues after. Mainstream media often takes his words out of context because they know it effectively convinces people he shouldn’t be taken seriously.

We’re living in an age where the media seems more focused on playing defense and offense with itself than taking on real issues. Even public opinion poll data is compromised by small groups flooding polls on social media. It’s no wonder our president is commenting on the situation.

But shifting the “alternative” underdog sites like Breitbart to the mainstream political news outlets, like Trump seems to be doing, isn’t going to make a lasting difference since these sites can be just as biased as the mainstream. Censoring what people can access online or taking away the power of alternative media isn’t the answer either — once America abandons free press, we abandon our integrity.

The solution to “fake media” lies in consumers. We can’t fall into the trap of confirmation bias. News that considers itself real will have valid and honest things to say, but we can also expect all sources to be skewed in some way. Instead of ignoring the bias you disagree with, search it out. Expand your perspective, balance your sources to cover the left, right and those rare sites sticking to bare facts. Don’t hide from the truth, even if it threatens your view of the world; however, don’t blindly believe everything you read, no matter how trustworthy the source looks. Read the news story and then watch the video clip, look up the policy or simply re-Google the facts.

In an era where our journalists can’t always be trusted and news is largely spread by individuals on social media, we have to remain diligent in our quest for the truth.

The post Greene: Fake news: the media tears itself apart in the information era appeared first on Emerald Media.

Black History Month originated as Negro History Week in 1926. Carter G. Woodson, a Black scholar who earned his doctorate at Harvard, started the tradition. He placed it on the second week of February to coincide with the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, both of whom Black communities already celebrated. Woodson wanted to take the celebration of these men and extend it out to all Black men and women who deserved recognition for their contributions to society.  

The Civil Rights Movement pushed universities to extend the one-week celebration, and in 1976 President Gerald R. Ford officially recognized February as Black History Month.

Today, February is a chance for K-12 schools to break out of their standard curriculum and introduce prominent Black figures throughout American history. Stores like Macy’s take the opportunity to highlight their diversity with a sale, and sites like Positive Promotions sell “inspirational” keychains, planners, pencils, bookmarks and other trinkets.

The University of Oregon celebrated this year with an annual Black History Month banquet, an art exhibit, lectures from Ta-Nehisi Coates and Barbara R. Arnwine, a special Ducks After Dark movie viewing, an unveiling of an historical marker for the home site of Wiley Griffon — one of Eugene’s first African-American residents — and an annual capstone event with the 2017 theme “Voices: Black in Oregon.”

But some question the validity of this one-month effort to celebrate Black culture. Woodson created Negro History Week because the education system ignored all Black accomplishments throughout America’s history. He wanted society to acknowledge the contributions of Black Americans; he looked forward to a day when the week would no longer be necessary and Black history would be fully integrated into the teaching of American history.

John Hope Franklin, a prominent Black American historian and a Woodson contemporary, was very skeptical of Black History Month.

“The expansion of the ‘week’ into a ‘month’ does not necessarily mean that we are moving toward the Woodson ideal,” Franklin said. “The commercialization of the ‘month’ provides hucksters with a longer period in which to sell their trinkets and souvenirs, corporations a greater opportunity to display their special brand of ‘civic awareness’ and lecturers the golden chance to show off their knowledge of Black history.”

Gerald Horne, another Black historian, shares Franklin’s criticism of the month. According to Horne, “A Black History Month that is useful should provide us with guidance as to how we reached the point where we are today and, quite simply, should not just be an antiquarian history for history’s sake.”

Unfortunately, Black History Month rarely goes beyond celebrating the already famous efforts of activists like Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, commercialized sales and dedications to a town’s first Black resident. These celebrations are more about capitalizing on a past struggle and current culture than highlighting recent underground achievements, discussing the modern struggle and pushing white America’s comfort zone into broadening our education standards year-round.

Morgan Freeman brought the debate against Black History Month to public attention in a 2005 interview with 60 Minutes, when he said “I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.” Freeman pointed out that there is no white history month.

One month is not enough to teach the impact the Black community has had in America. When teachers segregate Black history from American history and then squeeze it all into a single month, students receive an overly simplified version of a few highlight moments. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did more than give a speech about a dream, and he is just one of many Black men and women who have helped shape this country. We must shed this useless segregation in our education and teach the truth: Black history is American history.

But historians might not entirely agree with Freeman on abolishing Black History Month right away. As Franklin said, “Black History Month serves a useful purpose for there can be no doubt that we have not yet reached the point where there is widespread knowledge that, as Dr. Woodson liked to phrase it ‘the Negro played a not inconsiderable role in the making of America.’”

So instead of dismissing February, we should take Woodson’s original intention to heart. One month highlighting Black history cannot be the end goal. America must work towards resisting the capitalism of culture. We cannot let universities hire lecturers only one month out of twelve, or watch racially focused films during February alone. March 1 should not be an end to the celebration of a year-long culture, or the end to education of events spanning hundreds of years.

In a truly equal society, there is no segregation between “Black” and “white” history, and one should never take a backseat to the other.

The post Greene: Black History Month, celebration or segregation? appeared first on Emerald Media.

Trump’s campaign was plagued by biased media trash-talk.

An MRC study found that 91 percent of opinions on Trump broadcasted from ABC, CBS and NBC during his campaign were hostile, and the bashing hasn’t let up since Trump’s taken office. New York Times headlines read “‘Unbelievable Turmoil’: Trump’s First Month Leaves Washington Reeling,” and media have compared possible Russian ties in the White House to Watergate, despite the only broken law being the never-before-enforced Logan Act.

But, strip the news’ left-bias and consider the platforms Trump ran on. Has this month really been a disaster, or is the president delivering what he promised his supporters?

One of Trump’s biggest platform issues was illegal immigration. On the campaign trail in Arizona, Trump pledged to “build a great wall along the southern border,” end catch and release, have “zero tolerance for criminal aliens,” defund sanctuary cities, hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents and deport illegal immigrants with priorities being “criminals, gang members, security threats, visa overstays, public charges.”

Trump’s supporters were hoping a crackdown on illegal immigration would make communities safer, ease the strain on welfare resources and open up job positions by shutting down employers’ ability to hire illegal immigrants for low under the table wages.

Jan. 25, Trump signed executive order 13767. This order fulfills Trump’s promise to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents, ends catch and release and emphasizes “enacting Federal-State partnerships to enforce Federal immigration priorities.”

This order also states it is the policy of the executive branch to “secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border.” A “Government Transparency” section states the Secretary must monthly “report statistical data on aliens apprehended at or near the southern border” to the public in a “format that is easily understandable.”

Trump has also started working with the Department of Homeland Security on pulling grant money from sanctuary cities. Many people are expecting this issue to go to court, but as long as money is taken from areas related to the federal law cities are breaking, defunding is legal.

While an executive order alone cannot promise results, this does lay out the groundwork for Trump’s immigration policy, and matches what Trump promised his supporters.

Another big part of Trump’s appeal was his “outsider” status. He was a proud anti-politician: someone who was going to clean up lobbyists and big government in Washington.

Trump started this effort Jan. 23 by ordering a hiring freeze of “Federal civilian employees to be applied across the board in the executive branch.” This does not apply to Military personnel or Presidential appointments.

In addition to the hiring freeze, Jan. 30, Trump issued Executive Order 13771. This states that, unless prohibited by law, for every new regulation an executive department or agency has proposed, two which can be repealed must be identified. The idea is to keep government spending low, and directs “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director).”

Arguably, Trump’s most important move so far in draining the swamp was Executive Order 13770, signed Jan. 28. While this order doesn’t manage to impede on Congress’s relations with lobbyists, it does require every appointee in the executive agency to sign an ethics pledge. This legally binds them to wait at least five years after leaving office before engaging in lobbying activities related to the agency they worked in. It bars them from accepting gifts from registered lobbyists or lobby organizations while in office. If the appointee was a lobbyist up to two years before entering office, they can not participate in any matter they lobbied in for two years after appointment.

Additionally, a largely contested issue during the race was refugee admittance. Trump represented Americans worried about the terrorism refugees could bring, the burden they would put on our economy and the impact some of their values might have in communities.

Trump tried to follow through with a temporary ban on visas from seven Middle Eastern countries classified as terrorist threats, but his ban was contested in court. Instead of slowing down the political process with arduous court proceedings, the Trump administration has backed down and promised to issue a new refined order sometime in the next week.

Also, in the interest of national security, Trump promised voters to rebuild America’s military. A month isn’t really long enough to prove his dedication to military strength, but Trump did issue a memorandum Jan. 27 stating, “To pursue peace through strength, it shall be the policy of the United States to rebuild the U.S. Armed Forces.” This memorandum works to lay the foundation for rebuilding military strength.

Similar to the military, Trump campaigned as a friend to police forces at all levels of government. Again, it’s still a little too soon to tell if this was real or just hot air, but an executive order released Feb. 9 emphasizes finding strategies “to further enhance the protection and safety of Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.”

Trump has come through on several other campaign promises. He’s backed out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership he thought would hurt American workers. He’s started what will be a long process to repeal and replace Obamacare, which raised many people’s premiums and prompted employers to cut workers’ hours. His Supreme Court pick was from a list of possibilities he’d released as a candidate. He stopped the Federal government’s intervention in transgender bathroom policies, leaving the issue up to states. And, he expedited the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Of course, it’s going to take more time to see whether Trump will follow through on promises to bring back jobs and “take care of our workers … in particular African-American and Latino workers who are being shut out in this process so unfairly,” build safe zones in the Middle East or lower taxes for all Americans.

In his first month, Trump hasn’t won over many of his opposers, but he has done right by his supporters. It seems we can expect a Trump presidency that tries to follow most of his campaign platforms. Hopefully, Washington D.C. will experience a healthy shake-up during the next four years, and America will come out a better place for all citizens.

The post Greene: Trump’s first month in review appeared first on Emerald Media.

The ‘60s-inspired Portland-based band Sallie Ford and the Sound Outside formed in 2007 and reached prominence in 2011 when they performed on the Late Show with David Letterman. In 2013 the group broke up, but Sallie Ford has not dropped out of the music scene; instead she has sought to develop her own sound with a solo career.

On Feb. 10, Ford released “Soul Sick,” her second album since parting ways with the Sound Outside. This album followed “Slap Back,” her first solo piece with an all-female backing group. “Slap Back” began as a side project where Ford experimented with new writing styles and was intended to have a fun garage-rock feel to it — something very different than her established oldies rock sound.

“Slap Back was more a fun project that I just wanted to do,” Ford said. “A lot of those songs were just a different way of writing because I didn’t have a band anymore, and I wrote it all very quickly.”

After its release, Ford felt that “Slap Back” didn’t sound the way she intended it to, and she was disappointed with the public’s response.

“Instead of celebrating it, [people were] bummed out that the Sound Outside wasn’t in the picture anymore,” Ford said. “For me that was pretty hard, to be honest. I needed to find a way to explore how to be alone after being with them for like six years.”

“Soul Sick” is the product of Ford struggling with this breakup and her personal fear of failure as a musician. Inspired in part by Sufjan Steven’s concept albums, Ford wanted to create an album around a theme.

“It was kind of a reaction to my personal issues in general, which of course are going to relate to my band life,” Ford said. “I wanted to do something more deliberate this time, and working with Mike [Coykendall] is what helped me find that vision.” 

Ford had wanted to record an album with Coykendall since moving to Portland in 2006. Coykendall, the producer of “Soul Sick,” plays much of the music on the record and is part of the backing band.

Ford calls “Soul Sick” a confessional album, which is especially apparent on tracks dealing with issues like fear and the eventual acceptance of failure, or how hard life for a middle child can be.

The sound on “Soul Sick” is a bridge between Ford’s work with the Sound Outside and her newly redefined sound from “Slap Back.” The retro feel from her past music is present through the entire album, which does a nice job tying the piece together; but listeners also experience a more genuine and raw Ford than ever before.

“I’ve always liked retro music,” Ford said. “A lot of my childhood I listened to oldies music, and I wanted this album to sound kind of nostalgic that way.”

Nostalgia plays a big role in this album, and several songs tap into Ford’s childhood angst. The resulting product is a refectory piece on personal growth. Not only is “Soul Sick” a relatable album that can remind listeners of their own childhood and personal struggles, but it seems like a positive turning point in Ford’s career. She is able to explore new sounds while simultaneously holding on to her roots and integrity and comes off sounding more mature than ever before.

Ford compares bands to relationships, and in that way, “Soul Sick” is very much an album about a breakup, but also the celebration of a new beginning. As Ford sets out on her North American and European tour, she looks forward to playing shows with her new companions.

“Going out and playing music every night, there is something special about that, and I really love, love, love the people I’m playing with right now,” Ford said.

Before she leaves for Europe, Ford will perform at Mississippi Studios in Portland on Feb. 18. Tickets are $14 in advance and $16 at the door. The show is 21 and over.

Watch Sallie Ford perform “Failure” below:

The post Sallie Ford: Exploring how to be alone with ‘Soul Sick,’ life without the Sound Outside appeared first on Emerald Media.