One-Shot

I Hate the Commentator

We think they're amusing. They think we're evil. We call them the "Left." They call us the "Right." We give them space in our pages to make their case against us.

Before I launch into describing my hatred of the Commentator, I really have to start with some praise. The Commentator has done more to fuel students' apathy, help students ignore their privileges, and turn students off from getting involved in politics than any other media outlet on campus. The Commentator has not only brewed apathy, complacency, and ignorance, it, has also fueled and promoted racism, sexism, homophobia, and male domination.

I know what all you simple minded folks out there are thinking now: "Another goddamned liberal attacking the Commentator for having a 'sense of humor.' Take your political correctness and shove it up your ass!"

If that is your response to my attacks, I'd have to credit the Commentator and the rest of the conservative Right in this country for framing the debate in those terms. The Commentator has done a terrific job of simplifying the structural oppression that has been reinforced throughout this nation's history on all levels to an issue of "political correctness."

Let's look at some examples of where the Commentator masks their bigotry by claiming they're protesting "PC bullshit." I could pick a hundred examples, but these are two from the latest issue: In the "Spew" pages there was an exchange in cartoon bubbles between Peter Larson and CJ Gabbe: "Fellatio, CJ. Fellatio." "Great idea, Pete. I'll get right on it." Also, on the back cover, the fake census lists "American Injun or Drunken Eskimo" and other pejorative "jokes" about Latinos and indigenous people. I'm sure the Commentator folks don't even think that those "jokes" promote prejudice and bigotry. "Learn to take a joke. Lighten up," they'd say or some other oh-it's-really-not-that-big-a-deal type of response. To say it's not that big a deal and to laugh it off, which is really easy for privileged white males to do, is to deny the suffering and oppression that minority groups endure daily in this country, and even on this campus. Poking "fun" at Native Americans trivializes the oppression that they have faced for 500 years and the racism that is ingrained in white supremacist society. Also, the joke census was a waste of a great opportunity for real social commentary. What better time to articulate the government's prying into our personal lives and the authoritarian nature of the whole census process? By muddling the message, the Commentator squandered a chance to actually say something instead of just getting some laughs at the expense of the most marginalized people in this country.

I assume that lots of folks reading this write my concerns off as the rantings of some PC-Nazi-liberal who wants to restrict free speech and can't take a joke. First off, I firmly believe people should be able to print and write whatever they want. We'd be covering up the problem if we prevented people from printing racist things if they were racist like the Commentator is. If racist things weren't allowed to be printed, people who aren't victims of racism might start to think that there aren't racists out there. I am not naive enough to believe that reading this article will inspire the people who laughed at those "jokes" (or even wrote them) to confront all the privileges they have and their complicity in the ongoing and insidious oppression against women, gays, and ethnic minorities. It's a difficult thing to do. But the consumers and producers of the Commentator should at least be thinking about the ways their actions and attitudes support and perpetuate sexism, racism and homophobia.

Apart from their bigotry, the Commentator has just plain bad politics. I have to give it to this year's crew, though, because they came out of the closet with their conservatism like never before. The Conservative Issue was the clearest expression of the Commentator's true politics, which are usually cloaked in references to alcohol and sometimes-funny humor. The theme was "Leave us Alone," which is a fine libertarian attitude to have. If only they were sincere. Maybe they're sincere about wanting to be left alone. They just don't seem to care if other people are fucked with. They're so proud of championing the cause of the apathetic (which of course they aren't, or else they wouldn't devote their lives to the magazine.) Libertarianism and apathy don't go hand in hand. If the Commentator folks truly want liberty to reign and the state to leave us alone, they're going to have to fight for it. I hate the Commentator because they're not serious. Enough about their "anti-statism."

With this in mind, let's go through the editorial of the Conservative Issue. First, the editors don't want to pay taxes. They claim the government owns our incomes. It's true - no argument there. But instead of blaming that on everyone involved in the government, liberals and conservatives alike, they don't critique the conservatives for maintaining the ridiculously large military budget we have. Nor do the authors mention the billions of dollars governments give each year in subsidies to corporations who are making billions in profits each year and have no need for the subsidies of the government. Don't be such half-asses! All government is inherently evil and based on coercion. Don't go screaming about anti-statism and then want to maintain certain aspects of it that you like.

A little further on in the editorial, we are fed obvious misrepresentations of the truth. It is boldly stated, "...on virtually every occasion, the worst environmental tragedies occur as the result of a statist system." They mention some awful Russian oil disaster in the early 90s. Well, I don't remember that one, but I sure as hell remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill. And that was not a result of a Soviet oil monopoly, but of carelessness on the part of a bastardy capitalist corporation, who I'm sure would love to see less government regulations, so it can spill more oil and not have to pay anything back, and not clean it up.

"It is the Left," the Commentator claims, "who seeks, every breathing minute, to lend more and more private power unto the State." What, and the Right doesn't? Who are you kidding? The only budget cuts the Right endorses are for social programs like education, welfare, or anything else that might actually help working people. The Right is plenty happy to dole out the money to the rich and powerful. Both liberals and conservatives are the problem. Neither are truly interested in living in a free society without coercion and where people can just be left alone. Obviously the Commentator isn't either, despite what they say.

Like I said above: both liberals and conservatives are the problem. What we really need are people who want to radically change society to bring about true freedom. The Commentator has helped me come to this conclusion because of their scathing, and sometimes sane, critique of the Left on campus. I don't hate them for critiquing the Left. I hate the Commentator for making it seem like the status quo is what's best. A good example of this is their defense of the World Trade Organization during the huge protests that were going on in Seattle in December 1999. In the article "Welcome to Overreaction" Ben Nahorney writes, "But is the WTO directly responsible for these rules [that don't take into consideration labor and the environment] or does the responsibility lie elsewhere?" In response, Nahorney quotes professor Rod Davies, "'The protesters seem to be very worked up over the idea that trade is what does this-and it's not. It's capitalism. They're attacking a symptom, not the cause.'" It's funny that the Commentator would interview some stuffy academic instead of the people actually at the protest. If they had, they would have found out that the protesters there realize that capitalism is the problem, and that the WTO facilitates the spread of exploitation all over the world. That's why people went to Seattle. This is a classic example of how the Commentator uses an "expert," who really has no idea what the protesters were thinking, to sway public opinion against people who are trying to create positive social change.

What I don't get about apologists of capitalism like the Commentator: are they suggesting that things are going fine? That millions of people don't stave to death everyday? That our environment isn't going to shit? That people more and more aren't unhappy with their lives as they work in dehumanizing jobs everyday, all over the world? Are there really people out there that think things are actually going well?

I hate the Commentator for being so complacent with all the fucked up things that are going on in the world, and claiming that they shouldn't deal with any issues that don't have to do with their narrow little lives, because they feel that talking politics on the local level is most effective (read: distracting). We're all part of the global economy. We're not isolated. We can't be concerned only with how much liquor costs at the corner store and who's winning the ASUO elections.

This is one big rant, and I don't claim coherency. All I know is that I hate the Commentator, just as I hate all bigoted and racist apologists for statism, exploitation, and maintaining the status quo.

Willie Thompson, the de facto nucleus of the Insurgent Collective, is a good friend of the Oregon Commentator

The OC Responds:

Whatever, Willie.

-The Editors