Holy Business

Holiday consumer spending is up almost six percent since the last year. During Christmas of 2005, spenders purchased $435.6 billion worth of merchandise from retailers nationwide. These dollar amounts coincide with a recent survey that showed 87% of Americans believe that the holidays should be more about family than gift giving. From these sentiments, it would appear that there is much truth to the prevalent fear of the increasingly shallow meaning of the holidays. In regards to Christmas, this time of year used to be a reflecting point for Christians to observe a day remembering the birth of Jesus Christ. Now, the holiday has devolved into a secularized splurge-fest for consumers to disregard responsible spending, replaced with a menagerie of advertisements and marketing campaigns targeted at the materialistic middle and lower classes. Every year Christmas-time seems to occur earlier and earlier. Many disregard this notion, but there may be some truth to the statement. Two years ago, the average storefront decorated the day after Thanksgiving. This year that date has shifted up to the middle of October. This one-month difference is concurrent with the advancing tide of fiscal irresponsibility that threatens to rob the holidays of any substantial meaning.

 

Christmas is not the only "holy day" to have become a spending day this year. Hanukah, a once unimportant Jewish holiday celebrating the Jewish revival of the temple after Greek desecration, has been injected with a dose of good ole' American consumerism. Americans spend an increasingly larger amount on Hanukah gifts every year, as Hanukah consumer spending rose 15% since two years ago. In Israel , the biblical and cultural homeland of the Jews, Hanukah receives little fanfare, and gift giving is reserved for a small population of American immigrants.

 

A walk through any downtown department store smells of holiday cinnamon and winter pine. Christmas freezes encroach upon weary shoppers as holiday mobiles twirl overhead. Stores push extravagant holiday spending to the extreme, as gimmicks such as buy one get one free," turn to 'buy five get ten free." A family outing to church for Christmas mass has now become a family tradition of present buying and mall crooning. The average consumer is expected to spend $791 on holiday shopping this year. If more than two-thirds of Americans believe that exorbitant spending is not required to enjoy the holidays, why does this figure continue to increase? What will it take to return to the true meanings of these holidays?

 

It is my feeling that there may be no turning back. As the American dollar continues to fall in value, the economy becomes more dependent on consumerism and personal spending. Since the philosophy of "spend before save" is being pushed on American citizens by both business and government, the future may be bleak. Perhaps more fiscal responsibility is the prescription for our holiday ails. At any rate, ask yourself one question: Who needs the holidays more, the people, or the businesses they frequent?

Opposite POV: Sex Ed

One of the most critical debates in education today is sex-ed. Some argue that when discussing the "birds and the bees" in school, abstinence is the only acceptable message for students. Others disagree, maintaining that since contraception has a high rate of effectiveness, that the so- called 'safe-sex' initiative can be advanced to children. To examine the issue fairly, we must first establish two facts: First, the only way to prevent pregnancy 100% of the time is to remain abstinent. Secondly, condoms may be effective at preventing the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases. However, "may", has been the focus of intense scientific study, as reports of accidental pregnancy (even through the typical use of contraception) have doubled over the last ten years (Planned Parenthood). Many experts in academia and journalism agree that there is, "insufficient evidence to support the thesis that 'safe-sex' education is really all that safe." ( New York Times, 9/15/02) "Condoms may be effective in preventing transmission of HIV/AIDS, but beyond that they do not protect adequately against other sexually transmitted diseases," said Claude Allen, deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Much scientific research has been devoted to this conclusion. According the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an office of the Health Department, "condoms are 86% effective in protecting against the transmission of HIV/AIDS." The risk is similar to a game of Russian roulette, in which someone has a one in six chance of both contracting the terminal disease and finding the bullet. A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study reported "when condoms are typically used, they are 82% effective in preventing pregnancy." This rate of ineffectiveness is ahead of the teen pregnancy rate, and may suggest that as condom use increases, the teen pregnancy rate will rise. The myth of condom invincibility is further refuted by a University of Kentucky School of Medicine study regarding the use of condoms to protect against Human Pampilomavirus (HPV), an incurable disease linked to cervical cancer. The findings concluded that condoms are largely ineffective in preventing the contraction of HPV due to the fact that condoms do not cover areas of the skin conducive to transmitting the disease during sexual intercourse. The study also found that 40%-45% of college coeds have tested positive for the virus, suggesting that abstinence may be the only effective means of prevention. The CDC has declared HPV 'pandemic' in that one in six women will contract the disease in their lifetimes.
If people don't have sex, their risk of becoming pregnant and contracting potentially fatal STDs becomes nonexistent. The pro-contraception crowd ignores this subtle and under-reported statistic. Professors from Columbia and Yale universities published research that stated "adolescents who pledge to remain abstinent actually delayed their first sexual intercourse by three years longer than teens that did not make such a pledge." Even those institutions whose agendas advance contraception over abstinence have at times, been forced to admit that abstinence is the most effective means of sexual education. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood released a study revealing that in an Atlanta public schools 8th grade abstinence-only program, the student body demonstrated a reduced sexual initiation rate of 67% for boys, and 85% for girls. Furthermore, the Physicians Consortium, a coalition of over 2,000 doctors from all around the nation, published a report in the Journal of Adolescent and Family Health examining the drop in teen pregnancy rate between 1991 and 1995. The study concluded "abstinence accounted for 100% of the decline in teen birth rate and 67% of the reduction in the teen pregnancy rate in single adolescents."
Not only is abstinence extremely beneficial when implemented through state-funded programs, the promotion of contraception is actually counterproductive to the goals of spreading sexual awareness. An article in the highly regarded parenting magazine, Family Planning Perspectives cited that parents can do two things in the course of ensuring sexual education, to double their teens chance of remaining abstinent: enrolling them in abstinence-only sexual education, and avoiding the discussion of birth control altogether. By perpetuating the use of the phrase safe-sex', educators and government officials are serving to detriment adolescent health in that they deliver the fallacy of the existence of 100% safe sexual activity.
As the effectiveness of contraception is examined, more holes begin to appear in the conception contingency. Even the CDC has commented that, "the lack of condom research indicates that more study is required, not that latex condoms don't work. If "more research is required," as the CDC admits, why don't government health officials call a moratorium on safe sex education, which basis relies solely on the efficacy of condom use, until the research is completed? Why risk the health and safety of teenagers through botched and misleading education?

Air's LateNightTales Review

Some downtempo music can make you feel like an emo kid held-up with a bureau full of black eyeliner. AIR’s compilation of mood-enhancing tracks titled, “LateNight Tales” diverges from most similarly styled albums in that it evokes more than run of the mill sadness. A tidy package of ambiance, soul, and electronic pop, LNT is as uplifting and enlightening as it is moody and contemplative. Often lauded as pioneers in the creation of soulful and meaningful electronica, the French duo AIR are known for melodic and hypnotizing tracks that share universal appeal for both lounge-lovers and mainstream pop fans. LNT is no exception and brings together the best in lyrically rich music from all over Europe, American, and Austrailia.
This album was deceiving only in that I had hoped to listen to LNT as a way to bring about sleep in the darker hours of the night. Such attempts would be futile due to the captivating lyrics found throughout the album. While the beginning tracks serve as a melodic backdrop for subtle and melancholy sonnets, the heart of the album is in its midsection sample. Including tracks such as The Old Man’s Back Again by Scott Alexander and Let’s Get Lost by famed songwriter Elliot Smith, this part of the record made me think about the futility of angst and depression. In Lost, Smith writes, “Burning every bridge that I cross / To find some beautiful place to get lost.” The beauty of this album is that it leaves the listener feeling such hopelessness only to return with a great sense of inspiration.

Toasting the Federal Drinking Age

As I made my way through the infamous Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFS), I flipped the page to question twenty-two, “All males between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service.” In the context our fifth year in Iraq, the Vietnam-era question asked by so many draftees crossed my mind: If I can die for my country, why can’t I raise a glass in its honor?
I think the federal drinking age, as set by the National Minimum Drinking Age (NMDA) act, should be lowered from 21 to 18. As a teenager who has, and still feels the illicit grandeur of alcohol, I know that if the underage prohibition on alcohol were to be removed, the attraction would leave with it.
Without a doubt, the drinking age encourages underage bingeing. Since minors are unable to consume alcohol in the social obligations of a public setting they are forced to take drinking ‘underground’. This underground world of underage consumption means minors must hide their drinking from others and often leads to irresponsible actions. A Center for Disease Control study showed that 40 percent of underage drinkers surveyed either drove an automobile after bring-drinking, or rode with an intoxicated friend. This fact runs counter to statements made by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) who claim that somehow “the NMDA has lead to a drop in drunk driving.” This hollow platitude ignores the fact that the same CDC study also cited a 24 percent increase in underage DUI arrests. This shallow argument is further rebuked when the advance in safety technology such as seatbelts and airbags that ran concurrent with this drop is considered
Alcohol-related sexual abuse is an established problem for users over the age of 21. Why is the same phenomenon ignored within the context of the underage drinking debate? Of the 33.7 percent of adolescents who reported unwanted sexual episodes, one in four reported the consumption of alcohol before the sex. If alcohol is not the most ‘forbidden fruit’ of society, than sex surely takes the cake It is no wonder that there is such a prevalence of alcohol-related sex as long as the drinking age remains higher than the age of consent.
I would hope to be able to make one last toast. I want to raise my glass above the haze that has since 1984 obstructed the view of the American people; a haze that perpetuates hollow claims, semantics, and fear-tactics. Cheers.

American Aparell's Dirty Laundry

American Apparel is a Los Angeles-based clothing company that produces American-made shirts, pants and accessories. Globally minded consumers have flocked to the black and white stores, attracted by the company’s commitment to using sweatshop-free labor. The American Apparel website touts “the sale of a ‘conscience-free’ product line for those individuals who want to send a message to a clothing industry fueled by sweatshop labor.”
At the same time though, consumers are sending another message to the American worker and his fight for labor rights: We just don’t care.
American Apparel has consistently and deliberately acted to bust union efforts in its factories. Proponents of the company say that union efforts would be redundant as American Apparel already offers its workers satisfactory labor benefits. Among the benefits is an eight-dollar an hour base salary and on-site health care. The Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE) though, claimed roughly 20 disgruntled employees contacted them regarding oppressive labor conditions. After an evaluation of the employee’s claims, UNITE began a union drive hoping to address labor problems including a lack of paid time off, job-site mistreatment, and a program that rewards employees who inform on the other employees working to organize the shop. UNITE’s efforts were quickly stonewalled by American Apparel.
According to UNITE documents, CEO and founder Dov Charney is guilty of union busting in his factory. UNITE claims Charney forced workers to hold anti-union rallies, penalized assemblers who advocated for an open shop, and even fired outspoken employees. Charney maintains that the factory is union-neutral and even offered to hold a union vote among its employees. These “concessions” though are hollow as Charney still holds anti-union rallies and offered the union a vote after upwards of 35 employees were fired for trying to organize.
By denying its workers the opportunity for collective bargaining and representation, American Apparel mocks its own advertisements about social consciousness and labor reform. One such marketing ploy is their “Legalize LA” campaign, which advocates immigrant policy reform. The campaign is ingenious in that it encourages the purchase of “Legalize LA” t-shirts but fails to actually state specific political goals of the campaign. What better way to capatalize on a socially controversial issue than to create a product line based on a hollow platitude? If American Apparel was truly serious about immigrant reform, it would create programs that would help current immigrants obtain legal citizenship now.
American consumers must focus the same intensity on domestic labor rights as we do on the sweatshops of East Asia. Under the guise of socially minded business practice, American Apparel has lured a generation of hipsters and fashion-forward teenagers into a lucrative campaign of misinformation. When all of the company’s “dirty laundry” is aired it becomes clear that the American Apparel is different only in degree, not kind, from its competitors.

Anachronistic, Ridiculous, Anatopistic Laws

A compilation (please add more!) of silly laws still in force around the United States -

• Connecticut: You can be stopped by the police for biking over 65 miles per hour
• Illinois: It is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats, and other domesticated animal kept as pets.
• Massachusetts: Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts.
• Oklahoma: Violators can be fined, arrested or jailed for making ugly faces at a dog.
• Washington: It is illegal to sit on a man's lap on a metro bus, unless you are married.
• Oregon: People may not whistle underwater.

Some laws make sense with a little historical context, but most don't! If you have any more dumb laws, please add them. Even better would be some explanations for posted laws.

-- Gabriel

U of Oregon Athletics

What happened this year to U of Oregon athletics? Its ridiculous!

• Basketball starts the season ranked and goes 8-1, then finishes the season .500 in conference and won't get an NCAA bid. Portland State got a bid for heavens sake!
• Football starts 4-0, ranked 11th, considered a prospective BCS bowl threat. Then they got hit with a string of injuries and finished 5-4 in the Pac-10. Come on!
• Is there an Oregon Sports curse? Even last year's NCAA baseball champs, the Oregon State Beavers are struggling this season.
• U of Oregon baseball predictions 2009?

-- Gabriel