At the college level, I expect student organizations to have a relatively high degree of professionalism. To my disappointment, there’s a thin line between college candidates and the candidates in my high school who threw candy out during their speeches.

Deciding to attend the University is the biggest investment and commitment I have made. I would be a fool to not stay informed about policymaking that directly affects me. However, this election season, which is my first at the University, left a bad impression on me and many fellow freshmen.

Both slates chose to represent themselves with campaign rule violations and invasive tactics. The majority of these tactics took place on campus and targeted the freshman class.

As a freshmen, I spend nearly all of my time on campus. I eat here, I go to class here, and I sleep here. Campaigns took advantage of my personal space for the sake of their cause, which is why I have decided to never get involved in ASUO affairs.

Invasive Tactics

If volunteers came to your residence hall, they might have violated campaign rules. One volunteer posted a sticker on my door without my consent. University Housing Policies state “Posters and signs may be posted by residents on their own doors, the inside of their own windows, and in their own rooms” (Elections Packet page 21).

These tactics put students in a compromising position and ultimately destroyed the notion that dorms are comfortable environments to live in. Although Housing Policies allow campaigning within the dorms under certain conditions, I believe residence halls should be respected as personal space rather than free venues to promote political platforms.

Not to mention, votes obtained by dorm-to-dorm solicitation do not necessarily represent people’s viewpoints. One student on my floor told me she only voted for a campaign so the volunteers would leave. Judging by the array of matching stickers plastered throughout my hall, I suspect dozens of students voted for the sake of voting.

Setting up booths outside the EMU is a less invasive way to campaign. The booths aren’t the problem; it’s the volunteers who insist on having full-length conversations with you between your classes. If I were interested in talking about issues like school funding, I would walk up to a booth on my own time.

However, volunteers often reel people in while they are going to class, which is the most inconvenient and limited time to discuss agendas and complicated issues. Sometimes volunteers even followed students all the way down 13th street with election ballots open on their laptops.

Not only did the campaigns turn the most congested street on campus into a red and purple parade, they also planted themselves in front of dining halls, where many freshmen students eat.

As if confronting me on my way to dinner wasn’t good enough, volunteers called me multiple times throughout the week (I guess a single call wasn’t good enough either). When I didn’t pick up, they called me again two minutes later.

These campaigns were so invasive that my friends and I went out of our way to avoid volunteers. We ignored our cell phones for a week. We ignored the elections altogether.

I thought college-level government would be a step up from what I experienced in high school. Yet, I have found that college students are no different.

They would rather suffocate the student body with campaign symbols than actually earn an honest vote. In doing so, ASUO lost many freshman who could have potentially impacted the future of student government at the University.

Let’s just hope that some freshmen didn’t feel as invaded as I did.

A new magazine has just been launched called OutServe, aimed at gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender military members, both in celebration of the recent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and as a means of spreading pertinent facts. One such fact — members of the military are still being discharged for their sexual orientation.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy was repealed in 2010, though many service members still face discharge. What the general public doesn’t know about the repeal is that it won’t take place until possibly midsummer, according to policy makers, and that an openly gay member of the military will, until then, still face discharge under the old policy.

Currently it is illegal to discharge someone from the service for being a homosexual unless his or her orientation is somehow discovered. A soldier’s job hinges on a secret characteristic that has virtually nothing to do with his service.

As a strong advocate for equality, I find the then-Democratic-run Senate’s decision to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be an obvious one. Currently, with Republicans the majority in the House and Senate, questions are being raised as to the benefit of this repeal. Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) believes that it is a waste of government money that can better be spend on other military needs, despite the fact that “military needs” in 2010 was awarded a total of over $600 billion.

The cost of implementing the reintegration of gay and lesbian soldiers would be an estimates $10,000, while the cost of discharging them stands around $300 million, not to mention the millions of tax dollars wasted on training these soldiers who, apparently, were not as skilled as their orientation was offensive.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), worries that military chaplains will fear expressing their objections to homosexuality. Note this, Wilson: even if they do fear expressing their bigotry, they will not be discharged for expressing their views thanks to the First Amendment; a rather important part of our country’s constitution that didn’t apply to gays in the military until recently.

And maybe it won’t be so bad if they keep their mouths shut — I’ve always been told if you have something ignorant to say, don’t say it.

The repeal of DADT brings about new questions: will past military members who were discharged under the unconstitutional policy be allowed to re-enlist? Despite the horrible bullying and loneliness many gay and lesbian soldiers face, many still wish to serve. Over 11,000 soldiers have been discharged since 1997, and despite the repeal, that number will climb until the new policy is implemented (assuming the Republican majority fails in its attempts to change it).

Discharged soldiers will not be guaranteed a spot back in; rather, they have to jump through the hoops of reapplication once more.

In the end, it comes down to this: people who wanted to fight for their country were discharged for an attribute they were born with. After years waiting for the repeal of the policy that removed them from their posts, they still want to re-enlist to fight for a country whose government is being run by people attempting to remove them from the service yet again — aren’t these are the kind of dedicated individuals that the military needs?

Eugene: a city where the color green means environment, nature, and sustainability rather than money, capitalism and wealth. A place where community benefit means more than monetary gain. Where tall trees and flowing rivers hold more value than high-rise buildings and trendy cafes. Eugene holds true to its roots of environmental advocacy and the persistent effort to reduce our footprint in an increasingly human-impacted world. This is why BRING Recycling has flourished for over four decades, leading the way in the Willamette Valley as a place to both educated the public about the benefits of recycling, and providing the Eugene community with a place to practice what we so often preach: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

“When I first moved to Eugene, I was not surprised to find a store like BRING. Eugene definitely has a reputation of being more than a little environmentally conscious.” said Hannah Slater, senior at University of Oregon and volunteer at BRING Recycling.

Inspired by the first Earth Day in 1971, BRING opened its doors and minds to the idea of reusing materials, and creating something new. In the first year, the organization collected over 400 tons of glass, and inspired the community to embrace the idea of recycling and recreating. Community members can bring anything in good, usable condition to the recycling center such as doors, bookcases, piping, windows and everything in between. These materials are then used to build other buildings in a cheaper, more eco-friendly way. The materials are even made into sculptures and art.

The idea is simple, yet startlingly brilliant. Why destroy these materials when they can be reused? These materials are purchased for their functionality, why would we rid ourselves of our own materials thoughtlessly if the functionality is still intact?

“BRING is so much more than a “re-store”; they do so much to encourage and educate the community in how to lead more sustainable and eco-friendly lives,” says Slater.

BRING Recycling’s Planet Improvement Center stands on Franklin Boulevard in a colorful building made, of course, by recycled materials. its headquarter is surrounded by “The Garden of Earthly Delight”, a garden constructed by former University of Oregon students, inspired by BRING, to create a garden demonstrating responsible landscape techniques. Planters in the garden are made up of recycled materials too, including old metal garbage cans and leftover stadium light hoods.

The garden is designed to help community members learn to garden and build as sustainably as possible. For example the garden boasts systems that allow your garden to be hydrated by rainwater flowing off your roof, rather than from a hose.

BRING collaborates with other companies to create recycled and sustainably buildings on both the residential and commercial level, helping construct places like the Ecotrust Building (Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center) in the Pearl District of Portland. 98 percent of the materials used to make it are either from landfills, recycled, or reclaimed.

They give presentations to clubs, service organizations and community centers and lead “How To” workshops. They also visit K-12 classrooms throughout Lane County educating children about recycling and the environment.

Eugene paves the way as one of the “greenest” places in the country, and more importantly is determinedly “green” because the people care about the environment, not because it’s trendy, but because it’s important.

“BRING has such a positive and proactive approach to sustainability, similar to the mindset of most of the people of Eugene. And even if being eco-friendly isn’t the first thing on your mind, it’s still a great place to find cheap furniture, paint, hardware,” Slater said.

Perhaps its easier to overlook gems such as BRING in a city where everything glistens, but it’s important that we appreciate responsible business practices alongside environmental advocacy. BRING is giving the good people of Eugene the recycled materials necessary to build a greener, more responsible future.

In the sensory cortex of the brain, there is a map of the body. Each body part has its own designation in the brain where signals are sent when that particular body part experiences something sensory.

Consider that time you were walking through your living room barefoot and stepped on a Lego. Worst pain ever, right? Those signals travel at unthinkable speeds through your nerves, up the spinal cord, where they bounce around from various parts of your brain until they hit the “foot” region of the somatosensory map.

The more the touch receptors in the skin, the bigger the area allotted in the brain. These sections of the brain cross over each other, but usually don’t intersect. This very part of the brain is how you can tell what you’re touching, how painful something is, or even your orientation in space.

However, your brain can be fooled. Optical illusions can prove that. But what about physical illusions?

Amputee patients commonly experience a phenomenon called “phantom limb.” Basically, they can still feel, touch, and gesture (or feel like they’re gesturing) with an amputated limb. When told to grasp a mug, a patient with an amputated forearm was able to feel the mug underneath is missing fingers.  This particular patient, described in a Discover Magazine article, had lost the lower half of his right arm in a boating accident. Because he was a tennis player, he was able to switch to his left arm to play, but had trouble serving because “his ghostly right arm insists on holding the racket, too.”

When a limb, say an arm, is removed, the areas in the brain dedicated to that arm no longer get neural signals. But your brain doesn’t abandon that arm all together. In fact, the brain doesn’t even realize it’s missing after a while. This is because the areas around the “arm” region, in this case the “face” region, just spread out to encompass both regions. So when neurologist Vilayanur Subramanian was testing this theory, he touched amputee patients’ faces with a Q-tip, and they reported feeling the touch on their missing fingers. When he accidentally spilled a drop of water down the collar of one of the patients, the patient reported he felt water pouring down his arm.

Sometimes the patients feel unquenchable itchiness on their missing limb, or unbearable pain. Unfortunately, these discomforts can rarely be relieved because in the case, it really is all in their mind.

Part of the reasons these issues arise is because the brain has a hard time reconciling visual data with sensory data. While the map on your brain clearly has an arm on it, your eyes are seeing something much different. An original hypothesis was that the severed nerves at the end of an amputee’s stump just continuously sent pain signals to the brain, but removing the ends of those nerves didn’t help any.

I’ve read differing opinions on treatments or possible cures for phantom pain. If you watch House, MD, you’re probably remembering that episode where House cures his grouchy old neighbor’s phantom pain by placing his healthy arm in front of a mirror. While this is incredibly exaggerated (as many things on House are) there is still some truth to the treatment. Research suggests that you can fool your brain into thinking everything is normal with mirror therapy. Since your brain is only getting signals that scream CATASTROPHE! from a stump, some neurologists believe you can relieve the pain by putting the other, complete limb in front of a mirror to trick you brain into thinking everything’s dandy.
However, other research suggests that is complete bs, and it’s not that simple.

Neurologists aren’t even completely certain what causes the phantom limb phenomenon, or even how to help those patients who do suffer from it. Patients will just have to live with the ghosts in their brain for a little while longer.

A  lot of uproar has arisen due to the pending legislation regarding the federal funding, or lack thereof, for Planned Parenthood. It’s becoming more and more apparent that, not only do people have opinions, they will not stop shouting them until either everyone accepts their opinion, or the government forces them to have that opinion.

I’m fairly good at calming down my rational side long enough to wait until I get home to rant about the never-ending stupidity that people can spew, but, occasionally, I become overwhelmed. No, I don’t agree that funding for Planned Parenthood promotes abortion and, yes, I am pro-choice.  I can take a deep breath with this issue and realize that other people have different opinions. I get that.

But, sometimes, an idea is proposed that is so abnormally moronic that the fact that it has wormed its way into government leaves me nearly too stunned to speak. Nearly.

Republican Georgia state representative Bobby Franklin has opened his deranged head and let ideas flow that would better be kept at the bottom of a latrine somewhere. Because of him, a bill is being considered before the Georgia House that will—are you sitting down? —criminalize miscarriages.

According to Newsweek, more than half of all miscarriages are caused by uncontrollable chromosomal abnormalities. Other causes, so called “lifestyle causes,” have been vaguely studied, at best. Scientists are not in agreement as to whether microwaves or hot tubs can increase risk of miscarriage, for example.  Some habits, such as caffeine or alcohol consumption, also aid in a minority of miscarriages.

Mr. Franklin wants to make miscarriages, or, as he terms them, “prenatal murders,” punishable by the death penalty.

You might want to go back and read that last line again.

Bobby Franklin, who has three children himself and has been married for over 27 years, has a degree in Biblical studies from Covenant College. I don’t believe I’m taking a big leap by assuming that his radical opinions are influenced greatly by his religious background. Of course, he could just be insane.

Earlier this month, he proposed a bill that would change the term “victim” in rape cases’ criminal reports and court documents to, simply, “accuser.” That would protect the rapist (or, I supposed, the “accused”) if he/she turned out to be acquitted. Why just rape cases? Like I said: Insanity. But, hey, people lie about being raped all the time. It’s a Georgian pastime.

This new bill, however, would require criminal investigations in the wake of every miscarriage. Imagine this: you’re an expecting mother. You go to the doctor, excited to see your child up on that black-and-white monitor. But when they press that plastic bit into your stomach, there’s not heartbeat; there was a miscarriage. The doctor is sorry, he’s not sure what caused it (which is usually the case with miscarriages). You’re devastated.

Ring ring. Who’s that? The police? Sorry, they gotta investigate you, see if you didn’t throw yourself down a flight of stairs, or maybe you’ve been using meth, who knows? Suck it up!

This is what God wants!

If they discover—through means that the bill doesn’t expressly state—that the miscarriage occurred with absolutely no human involvement (which means, I assume, God just wanted to mess with you), then you’re off the hook. Whoo!

Can you imagine how traumatizing it would be if you were taken to court? Man, that would have been awful. But everything’s all right in the end.

Or say you are proven guilty by a jury of your peers, proven guilty under a bill created by a man who most certainly is NOT your peer, who is, in fact, a man with no medical background, who’s so far right he’s fallen completely off the edge, who for not for a second considered what you might be going through as it is without your government accusing you of killing an unborn, underdeveloped fetus within your own body.

Well then, you might just find yourself on death row.

Gotta love Bobby Franklin.

If you’ve been following Barbie on Twitter (let’s face it, you have) then you know that several years back, she and Ken had a falling out. Why the hell this matters to anyone, ever, is a mystery, but there is good news: as of Valentine’s Day 2011 the duo are back together.

Now while this seven-year advertising ploy seems like a lot of work for the setup of a $5 “Together Again” gift set, Mattel seems bent on teaching young girls and boys several things:

1) If a guy begs enough, especially over twitter (how romantic!), you’ll be taking him back. 2) Single girls, worry not! There’s a man out there to complete you!

and

3) Your love life can be quite the profitable scheme

But you can’t really fault Mattel. They’re bringing Barbie into the 21st century, into our generation, and they’re doing it with as much grace as two plastic dolls can afford.

The very fact that Barbie and Ken broke up to begin with shows the evolution of the Barbie brand, a step away from the seemingly built-in idea of Barbie representing not only one-half of a clichéd soul mate duo, but also an absolutely perfect and problem-free romance.

And while Ken is still that sports-crazed, super masculine douche bag we expect from Mattel—one recent tweet said, “What a Ken-tastrophe. Two dates scheduled for one night. What’s a guy to do?”—the fact remains that he’s beginning to represent a less extreme, hormone-driven culture. While Ken himself hasn’t changed, and, in all actuality, Barbie has not changed, the relationship between them has.

Sure, the two are back together now, but Barbie was single for an impressive length of time for an impossibly beautiful blonde with obsessive tendencies. And even when the two are, once again, an “item,” stereotyping it up in their plastic Barbie fun house, their whole existence is still in Barbie’s terms.

Can you imagine this happening in the 50’s?

Parents would have accused Mattel of teaching their children anti-Christian values, would have accused Barbie of being a harlot for choosing to see other men. Barbie would have been shunned as an unfaithful, godless and sex-crazed nymph, and Ken, either the poor victim of a disobedient wife, or the weakling who couldn’t keep his woman in her place.

Now, Barbie’s antics are seen as a rally for feminine independence, even if single Barbie is just as superficial and air-headed as hopelessly-in-love Barbie.

Though it was inevitable that the two should reignite the fire of their sexless romance—tweets like Barbie’s, “Could Ken be cuter? Snap him up while he’s single, dolls! Or should I?” foreshadowed this predictable reunion—Mattel is taking steps away from the Disney princess ideals of the 50’s and 60’s and finally adding a pinch of present-day individualism, as skin-deep as it is.

Barbie still loves pink and shopping for expensive clothes. Ken still loves football and gets any woman he winks suggestively at. These things may never change. But, as a girl who never played with Barbie dolls, who preferred Beanie Babies and Yu-Gi-Oh cards, I can appreciate a socially conscious effort to drag a reluctant couple through an almost-believable turmoil.

So happy Valentine’s Day Barbie and Ken. May you successfully survive many more consumer-driven advertising schemes.

An “Internet Kill Switch” from 2009 is back before Senate, asking the ever-pertinent question: how much control should the government have on our communication? This switch, should it be approved, will be a comical rendition not unlike that huge, red atomic war button the president always accidentally hits in those oldie cartoons.

This, however, rather than killing the world with a humorous “Whoops!” of some clumsy national leader, will halt any internet activity deemed threatening, from your laptop to your iPhone.

A crazy concept, not doubt, that was just recently put into use. The Egyptian government disrupted internet activity in its country in an attempt to halt protestors from organizing. And while we all know that protesting only came into existence after the internet invented it, one has to wonder: what else is at stake?

In the event of a national emergency, is the internet really the largest concern? And would it in fact make matters worse? At some point, people will care less about the national emergency and more about the fact that they can’t log onto their face book, because, at the end of the day, personal emergencies disrupt our lives more so than national ones.

But the fact is that a kill switch is a breech of American rights on so many different levels, it’s nearly mind-boggling. The right to consume and share information has been an integral part of human development since we were doing little more than sitting in caves and grunting at each other. The fact that our communication is now primarily digital does not give anyone the right to shut it down any more than they would have the right to shove socks into our mouths to keep us from talking.

The excuse can be made that, hey, just because we have a kill switch doesn’t mean we’ll use it, but you could aim a sock cannon my face and claim the same thing.

We must consider that no single person has the fortitude or lack-of-agenda to decide when an event of national security constitutes the silence of our virtual voices. A kill switch invites, with open arms, those who would take advantage of it and, for all intents and purposes, use it for evil.

And quite honestly, it’s just screaming “Big Brother.”

In the most basic terms, the kill switch proposal is a proposal to halt the spread of ideas in the name of national security. This has happened before, and it always ends up with the U.S. government offering an apology for infringing on the people’s rights. I say we avoid the apology all together, take a step back and consider the implications before we’re recording them.

1.      Trekkies rejoice: Vulcan could exist!

Yes, you read correctly. Spock’s home planet could actually exist. Maybe. Epsilon Eridani, the planetary system located about 10 light years (62 trillion miles) away from us, supposedly holds the planet Vulcan within its confines. Astronomers speculate that the two asteroid belts around Epsilon Eridani are being held together by planets like our own Jupiter, who does the very same job for our solar system. The Epsilon Eridani solar system is thought to be a much younger but similar version of ours, which would contradict Star Trek because Vulcans are supposed to be an advanced civilization. Do I smell a time-travelling, parallel-universe-creating plot-twist?