Mount Hood

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor 
managing editor

I’m convinced my Facebook feed is just an increasing pile of things I never want to read about, but continue to look at on a daily basis.

Facebook, in a sense, is like fast food. It sounds so good at first, it’s super convenient, and it’s absolutely amazing when you first start. Then, as time goes on and you consume more of it, like a lot more of it, it sort of makes you sick.

I’ve definitely hit the side of overconsumption where Facebook is making me sick, or maybe I’m just sick of Facebook.

The other day I saw this post that was shared thousands of times, and at least five times by people I’m friends with on Facebook that talked about splitting up the lottery winnings. Maybe you’re familiar with it; it said something along the lines that if the 1.3 billion dollars was split evenly among all the people in the U.S. then everyone would get four million dollars.

I don’t even know where to start on addressing this. The math, first of all, couldn’t be more inaccurate. And on a second note, when I read the comments beneath this post I was actually convinced that some people will believe anything they read online.

And this madness of believing 1.3 billion divided by 300 million equals four million has actually become the norm for what I see online.

I’m constantly seeing things that leave me shaking my head and wondering why I’m still reading post from people that I never interact with in real life. The “unfollow” or “unfriend” button is continually getting pressed.

I’m finding that the only good things I see on Facebook are those addicting Tasty videos that show me how to make pizza dips and Oreo stuffed donuts. Or pictures my cousin uploads of his new baby.

So why do I keep logging on and reading what everyone has posted and shared? Why can’t I pull myself away from what some would consider internet garbage?

Maybe food videos and baby pictures are enough to keep me logging back on. Or maybe I’m just stuck with the fear of missing out on something that’s actually important.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By:Katrina Penaflor 
managing editor

Winter break at my parents’ house: a love/hate relationship.

God bless winter break.

God bless the three week reprieve from classes.

God bless sleeping in for a week because I told my other job school lasted a week longer than it actually did so they wouldn’t schedule me.

God bless my mother constantly reminding me it’s my turn to do the dishes. Oh wait…

For everyone, winter break is different. Some people stay in Monmouth, some people travel (the lucky ones), and some people, like me, go back to their parents’ house.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I love going home to my family. I miss them when I’m at school, and I have a great relationship with my parents and siblings.

The only issue in all this is dealing with the change of living on my own to living back under my parents’ roof and abiding by the “their house, their rules concept.”

At my house, here in Monmouth, I literally get to do whatever I want. It’s not like I do anything crazy with this freedom, it’s more just not wearing any pants, never doing my dishes, and leaving my stuff all over the place.

Things I’m sure other students can relate to. And if they say they don’t, they’re probably lying.

But at my parents’ house, it’s like freedom is slowly dialed back. I’m transported back to the days of high school where I have to tell my parents where I’m going, share the television with my little sister Gracie, and have to try not to swear so much (that last one proved to be the most difficult).

But of course there are the upsides, like food. So much wonderful food. It’s just magically always there in the cabinets and fridge (thank you, mom). And getting together with family members that I only see once or twice a year (Uncle David, thank you for hosting Christmas).

So I guess in the grand scheme of things, I really have nothing to complain about. I loved taking a break from school and going home, even if it did mean keeping “f” words that rhyme with duck out of my vocabulary.

As for the winter break “love/hate relationship” I shall just say, “Winter break, I love you.”

What’s the big deal?

By: Conner Williams 
Editor in Chief

Chances are you’ve probably heard about this armed “militia” that has taken over a federal building in Eastern Oregon.

Here’s the scoop: on Saturday, Jan. 2, an estimated 300 protesters paraded through the town of Burns in protest of the prison sentence that was handed down to two Harney County ranchers – Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond – when they were convicted of arson for burning federal land.

After the protest, a group of people – to which the mass media is conspicuously labeling a militia – occupied the wildlife refuge for further protest of the Hammonds’ sentence.

The self-proclaimed leader of the “militia” is Ammond Bundy; he is the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who in recent years was part of an armed standoff with the feds over grazing rights when he refused to pay fees for allowing his cattle to graze on federal lands.

Ammond Bundy has said that the group does not wish to harm anyone, but they would not rule out violence if authorities tried to remove them from the site, according to The Oregonian. Bundy and the rest of the supporters claim they have enough supplies to last years, despite asking for the public’s help via social media on the second day of their so-called occupation.

The thing about this situation that I find the most amusing is the way the mass media places certain terminologies on people based on race and ethnicity.

Let’s face it: if these guys were Muslim-Americans, or basically anyone that isn’t Caucasian, they would be called “terrorists” rather than “militiamen.” These individuals should be labeled for what they really are: domestic terrorists.

Many have claimed that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to form a militia and protest against a tyrannical government, but the truth is that the government hasn’t actually done anything wrong in this situation.

The Hammonds claimed the land that they burned belonged to them, when it is indeed owned by the Bureau of Land Management. They committed a felony and were sentenced accordingly.

These guys label themselves as patriots, when really all they are is a bunch of sympathizers of people that decided not to pay what are essentially federal taxes.

And while people inside the refuge have not specifically stated what sort of weapons they have (or don’t have), Ammond Bundy himself has posted a video on his Facebook page asking for support from others around the country – support in the form of weaponry.

I personally don’t think there is much to worry about in the form of violence, and that the occupiers will most likely just run out of supplies and be forced to come out and give an embarrassing explanation or excuse.

These people aren’t occupying a major government building; they’re in the visitor center of a wildlife center in the middle of nowhere. Everybody needs to just calm down and stop acting like this is some giant story that needs 24-hour coverage, because it doesn’t. Let them throw their little anti-government tantrum, and then arrest them when they’re done.

Putting lipstick on a pig

By: Stephanie Blair 
Photo Editor

Many brands claim to be “cruelty-free,” with labels that boast “Not tested on animals!” but in reality, they do. Many cosmetic companies, such as L’Oreal, state on their website that “L’Oréal no longer tests any of its products or any of its ingredients on animals, anywhere in the world nor does L’Oréal delegate this task to others. An exception could only be made if regulatory authorities demanded it for safety or regulatory purposes.” So this raises the question: where is animal testing required by law?

China.

Rather than rip into Chinese consumer law, let me also point out the inherent flaw of saying that a company doesn’t condone animal testing but would do so “if regulatory authorities demanded it.” These companies don’t need to sell in China. Selling in a country that requires animal testing before placing products on the shelves is optional.

I understand that China is a huge market, with its population clocking in at over 1.3 billion. However, by choosing to sell in China while officially stating that they are against animal testing, these companies are stating through actions that profit is more important to the company than ethics.

As a consumer, I feel lied to. If a company is truly against animal testing, why make that choice? The policy becomes a lie to placate the uninformed animal-lover.

A few of the popular brands boasting this tagline are: Avon, Bath and Body Works, Maybelline, L’Oreal, and Axe.

Some other companies boast the same cruelty-free slogan without the Chinese law addendum, and a few specific brands may have started out cruelty-free. However, they are now owned by parent companies who do support animal testing, or do sell in China. So by buying this product that is “cruelty-free” you are giving profit to and helping support the non-cruelty-free parent company.

Some of these brands include: M.A.C. (which is owned by Estee Lauder), Tarte (owned by Kose), Burt’s Bees (owned by Clorox), The Body Shop (owned by L’Oreal), and Urban Decay (also owned by L’Oreal).

While I’ve heard it argued that by only buying from these cruelty-free subsets of this parent company, consumers are showing that the public favors a cruelty-free option. But in reality, as long as these companies are making money, they’re not going to change their testing methods.

Animal testing is quicker and cheaper than the alternatives, such as stem cell usage, but at the cost of torturing innocent lives.

Before I saw the cruelty for myself, I felt that people who said the previous line were exaggerating. After hearing the shrieks of pain from a cosmetic testing bunny, after seeing the aftermath of these experiments, I can definitively say that it is not an overstatement.

To put a bit of perspective on the treatment of these animals, a man in Washington state was sentenced to 80 hours of community service and two years of probation for duct taping shut the mouth of his son. Meanwhile, companies are legally carrying out torturous acts such as “skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of restrained rabbits without any pain relief” and “repeated force-feeding studies lasting weeks or months to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards such as cancer or birth defects” according to humanesociety.org among other horrifying tests.

Animal testing is an ugly thing that many people feel they would rather not know about. The reason, at the heart of it, why people don’t want to talk about it is because they know it’s wrong.

Humans are empathetic creatures, but we’ve evolved into consumers who care more about the prestige of the brand name or the lower cost of the product rather than ethics.

This is not a call for our campus to go vegan; I’ve seen too many “I LOVE BACON” shirts for that. What I am asking is that people stay informed. If you don’t want to support this disgusting system, make sure you don’t.

Ask questions, read up; don’t be satisfied with a vague answer on a company’s webpage.

A little bit of kindness goes a long way

By: Conner Williams
Editor in Chief

I had an interesting start to my winter break. I decided to go and spend some time with one of my good friends whom lives just south of Seattle, as well as my older sister whom is in the same area.

I packed up some stuff to last me about a week and took off early in the morning so as to try and avoid traffic on I-5. It was a particularly nasty rainy Sunday as I made my way up the interstate and into Washington state.

Just as I passed Kelso, my Ford Ranger hit a deep patch of standing water in the middle lane and began to hydroplane. I had experienced the feeling before, so I let off the gas and attempted to slowly steer out of the water.

As I did so, my truck began to turn sideways, eventually coming to the edge of the roadway, where it caught the lip of the grass and forced all of the momentum forward as my truck flipped twice. I landed upright in the center medium between the north and southbound lanes in a squishy patch of deep grass and mud, which probably softened the impact significantly.

My truck was ruined; the entire passenger side was caved in, and I am thankful that I did not have someone with me, for this story would be told with a much more somber tone.

My backpack containing my computer and many of my work and school supplies was thrown from the vehicle, but miraculously, it was all unharmed.

As I came to my senses, I flexed all of my muscles and felt around my body: I was unscathed. Literally, I did not have a scratch on me, nor was anything broken or strained or bruised. I somehow managed to keep my body in a tight position and stop my head from crashing into my window, probably thanks to years of training that have given me a strong neck and torso.

I was able to open my door and get out, at which point I could feel myself going into shock. It’s a strange, uncontrollable human reflex, and I hope none of you reading this ever have to experience it if you haven’t before. The paramedics and police arrived shortly, at which point I refused an ambulance ride due to the fact that I can’t really afford a $1,000 bill for it.

When it all happened, a woman in a Ford F-350 truck had stopped in the emergency lane to check on me.
This was probably one of the kindest, most thoughtful and selfless person I have ever met in my life. After I had dealt with the patrol officer and was given my citation (that was just the cherry on top of an already perfect morning), this woman offered to take me back to town so that I could wait for my parents to come and get me.

She had willingly missed more than half of her church’s service, so I told her that I would be more than happy to wait at her church so that she could be there for at least some of mass.

The people that I met were extremely generous and kind to me; I was greeted with a hot meal, coffee, and given a giant fruit basket to take home. I did all I could to say thank you by moving in about a dozen hay bails that were to be used for a nativity scene.

The woman then took me into town where we waited at a McDonald’s until my parents arrived shortly after.

While this incident was one of the most unfortunate experiences I’ve gone through, I did learn something about the human race. I met one of the most thoughtful people that I had ever known. She could have simply kept driving and said, “That sucks, not my problem,” but she decided to stop and help out someone in need.

I will be forever grateful for her sense of generosity and good nature that day. She made a bad situation a little bit better by showing me some basic compassion, something that if more people gave to one another, we might be living in a better world.

In the future, if I ever see something like that happen or if I come across someone on the side of the road, I will stop and show them the same courtesy that I was shown earlier in my life. A little bit of kindness goes a long way.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

Good lord above, please put an end to these “glitter beards.”

Seriously, did I ever think I would utter a sentence about glitter beards out loud? No, I never did.

For those who aren’t aware, glitter beards are a new trend — a word I’m using very loosely — where men cover their beards in glitter.

Maybe because I myself do not have a beard, I can’t fully grasp the desire to douse facial hair in the cleanup disaster that are sparkly flecks of glitter, but none the less, all over social media I keep seeing it.

I even spent five minutes of my life watching a video of how to properly apply the glitter. Spoiler alert: there really is no trick, just apply oil and then glitter.

Now, the video was actually pretty hilarious because the guys making it were funny, but the entire time I kept thinking to myself, “The cleanup, good god it’s going to get all over the carpet!”

Then I had another equally terrifying thought that I had finally turned into my mother. Something I didn’t think would happen so soon, but alas, it has.

Maybe this trend is just another way to add to the sparkly holiday spirit?

And in all honesty if this is something anyone is seriously into or is desperate to rock at their next Christmas party, I’m not knocking your taste. You do you.

I’m simply typing to help organize my erratic mind full of odd thoughts.

Also, I’m curious as to how long the glitter will last, especially if applied to a large beard. I’m sure men will be finding remnants until next Christmas.

Maybe I just won’t get it until I dip my head in a bucket of glitter. Maybe that will be my enlightened moment, and my musings full of confusion will finally come to an end.

But until then, glitter beards, you will still continue to completely baffle me.

Happy holidays, taxpayers

By: Conner Williams 
Editor-in-Chief

It’s that time of the year again, time for everybody to get into the spirit of giving and show their appreciation for each other. So how do big businesses located in Oregon get into the holiday spirit?

By threatening to take their corporations, and the jobs that come with them, out of state if Oregon taxpayers don’t cut them a break.

Big businesses love Oregon, and we love having them here, for the most part.

They create local jobs that contribute to the growth of the state economy and provide an element of prestige to our state. I mean, how cool is it that Nike’s world headquarters are right up I-5?

But as much as we love having big businesses in Oregon, they love reminding us why they’re here: low taxes.

According to The Tax Foundation’s 2015 State Business Tax Climate Index, which is a collection of data that shows how well states structure their tax systems, Oregon ranked no. 12 on the list, and was ranked no. 4 in the sales tax rank category.

Since Oregon has relatively low property taxes for businesses and zero sales tax that businesses are partly responsible for covering, our quaint Pacific Northwest state has become a safe haven for businesses looking to turn some large profits.

So what do they do when faced with the potential for increased taxes? Threaten to leave, of course.

Our Oregon, a coalition that “fights for economic and social fairness for all Oregonians,” recently introduced a potential ballot measure that would increase state funds by an estimated $2.6 billion a year, money that is purported to be designated for schools and other services.

Many in favor of the potential measure say that the money generated could be used to pay off the majority of our crippling PERS debt, which is set to cost the taxpayers of Oregon billions come 2017.

But there is no clear indication yet of what the funds would explicitly be used for.

The tax is what is a called a gross receipts tax and would charge businesses to pay a tax rate of 2.5 percent on their Oregon sales that totaled $25 million or more.

The whole point of the proposed measure is to target larger chain businesses that also conduct sales outside of Oregon, such as large grocery stores and corporations like Nike and Intel. However, the measure claims that the tax would only be on sales that are made in Oregon.

The intent of the potential measure is a noble one; it charges large businesses that have seen huge profits in the state of Oregon from repeated tax breaks and leniency from taxpayers to begin to pay their fair share.

Corporations holding taxpayers hostage is a despicable act that has been seen before.

Think of sports franchises – billion-dollar corporations in their own right – that threaten to leave their respective cities if they do not get a new playing arena built, with the taxpayers footing the bill, of course.

It is also curious that a decision like this is being put forth as a potential ballot measure instead of one that is made in the state legislature, but I suppose that legislators don’t want to upset their corporate donors that help to ensure they get reelected.

It comes down to a simple question: on whom do the voters want to place the burden of our state’s financial woes?

Should the taxpayers continue to vote themselves into a hole, or should big corporations that use our state as a profit-haven be held accountable to pay their fair share back into the state in which their businesses thrive?

WOU logo

Facebook   Instagram   Twitter  YouTube  LinkedIn  wouTV

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

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

Tools

Campus Maps
Canvas
Find People
Portal
Virtual Tour
WOU Email
Technical Support

Resources

A-Z Index
Accessibility
Academic Calendar
Class Schedule
Jobs at WOU
Partnerships
Student Services

Western Oregon University’s Land Acknowledgement
Western Oregon University in Monmouth, OR is located within the traditional homelands of the Luckiamute Band of Kalapuya. Following the Willamette Valley Treaty of 1855 (Kalapuya etc. Treaty), Kalapuya people were forcibly removed to reservations in Western Oregon. Today, living descendants of these people are a part of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians.

Accessibility    Public Records    Privacy    Student Consumer Information

WOU prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national or ethnic origin, age, religion, marital status, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in all programs, activities and employment practices as required by Title IX, other applicable laws, and policies. Retaliation is prohibited by WOU.