6 Opinions

The Pioneer Log, February 18, 2011

My eyes are up here When the advertising companies

A weekly feminist column for everybody

Valentines Day: Heteronormativity at its finest?

BY MAGGIE HENNESSEY
Staff Writer

come a knockin- in a personal way

BY JERRED BLANCHARD
Staff Writer

Once again, Valentines Day has come and gone. The chocolate is eaten, flowers and false eyelashes are tossed, restaurants can finally shrink back to their normal capacity and Hallmark stays in business for yet another year. But this Valentines Day, Ive been thinking a bit about what were actually celebrating. Its not that Im against Valentines Day, but I prefer more diverse portrayals of everyday love. Feb. 14th is clich! After seeing a few thousand commercials selling ugly jeweled pendants, I came to the realization that I was totally sick of being sold Americas favorite lovey-dovey holiday. Mainly, I take issue with the fact that our practices on Valentines Day are heteronormative: it promotes heterosexuality and to a certain extent, monogamy as the ultimate ideal everyone should seek. Never have I seen a jewelry or chocolate advertisement that targeted a queer man or woman buying a bedazzled trinket for his or her lover. I also must have missed the one with the disabled man giving a bouquet of roses for his partner. I hate to have to break this to the marketing world, but straight,

white, able-bodied and upperclass men and women are not the only people who fall in love. My other substantial gripe with this holiday is that it supports the idea that on this day, a woman needs a man. Even though I am in a relationship and am a self-proclaimed romantic, I still can recognize the subversively sexist foundations of this holiday. I find that the whole ordeal seems contrived and forced, and I feel caught in the awkward grey area between my feminism and my adoration of chivalry. But feminists or not, we are still affected by societys not-sohidden messages to all singles on Valentines Day: you are incomplete. Just over a year ago, the New York Times cited Lewis & Clark as having a pronounced gender imbalance, and thus validated the thoughts of lonely women across campus. Add a couple-centric holiday to the mix, and you have a slew of unhappy females bemoaning the lack of decent and/ or datable men on this campus. And with that fact, I suppose my only consolation is the catchphrase of the beloved drag queen RuPaul: If you cant love yourself, how the hell you gonna love somebody else? Amen, sister.

There is this strange notion of the personalized advertisement that freaks me out. Personalized advertisements are basically companies taking a gander at what you do on the Internet and then catering to your specific interests with their product plugs. On the one hand, it is quite convenient that the doglovers, for instance, are presented with the latest deals on kibble. On the other hand, it seems quite terrifying that the agencies and corporations know our interests and can properly brainwash us accordingly. I remember those sweet days when my precious Internet was void of those incessantly nagging advertisements and I could check my email without learning about the latest deals on carburetors. Nowadays, I cant even watch a YouTube video without somebody telling me how white my shirts can be. I dont need bleach right now, and when I do, Ill go out and buy whatever is cheapest at my local Safeway. I mean, I used to wish that

ILLUSTRATION BY KYLA COVEY

those companies could at least cater to my interests based on my search history; that they would read over my Facebook interests and advertise to me based on them. Well, be careful what you wish for. Now, every time I check Facebook, Im harassed by a sea of personalized annoyances. These companies know that Im a single male who likes music and frisbee because of my profile. Ive been offered muscle growth formula, Internet dating sites, frisbee leagues, recording schools and all of these ridiculous, superfluous accessories that people feel I need to buy. It turns out that personalized advertisements are scarier than I thought. But maybe I need to lighten

up and see this as an opportunity. I dont care if the Internet knows I like science fiction movies, because I do. If these advertisers want to push the products that they know I like, thats cool. But what scares me is the idea that the opportunity to spy on us is so easy. When I become an important businessman with a reputation to uphold, I definitely wont want people spying on my Internet activity. At any rate, advertisements are obnoxious and a nuisance, whether I want the product or not. The notion of having my history constantly checked is a little frightening, but the reality of it is that most people dont really care where Ive been on the Internet; they just want me to buy their merchandise.

Sustainability is Sexy: A weekly column dedicated to environmental dialogue Nuclear power is the answer to fuel dependence
BY RACHEL YOUNG
Staff Writer

Global warming is the most complicated pollution problem in human history, caused by the excess emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion used to create energy. Halting additional CO2 emissions requires the implementation of every noncarbon polluting energy technology, including nuclear power. The International Panel on Climate Changes states in their 2007 report that to ensure a stable climate system we need to reach an atmospheric carbon dioxide content of 450 parts per million (ppm). This was the target goal stated in the Kyoto Protocol. However, many environmental groups, such as 350.org, do not think 450 ppm is ambitious enough. To hit a target of 450 ppm while maintaining the same level of energy consumption, a massive investment in alternative energy sources

would be necessary. We would need approximately 16 times the amount of current wind power, five times the amount of geothermal, an 80% increase in hydroelectric, 170 times more solar and twice the amount of current global nuclear power. In addition, only 20% of all current coal plants could continue to operate (all containing carbon capture and sequestration technology).

If your only source of energy over your entire life was nuclear power, your energy consumption waste...would be about the size of a can of Coke, said Jesse Jenkins.

The task of ending our dependence on fossil fuels is incomprehensibly large and without nuclear power it is about 2.5 times larger. Therefore, we cannot disregard the energy potential of nuclear power. Without nuclear power, we would render the unfeasible task of decarbonizing our energy sector impossible. Despite preconceived assumptions, nuclear energy is not as dangerous as many environmental organizations make it out to be. The Three Mile Island accident occurred in April 1979 when a particle core melted down at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania. It was the biggest accident to occur in the history of the American commercial nuclear power generating industry. However, nobody died during the accident. In contrast, there have been 69 deaths from gulf drilling since 2001 and the Texas BP refinery explosion of 2005 killed 15 people.

Additionally, an average of 30 people die from coal mining accidents every year. A second major concern by those in opposition to nuclear power, is nuclear waste, but a ton of uranium fuel for nuclear power plants is more than 200,000 times more energy dense than a ton of coal. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a single uranium fuel pellet the size of a fingertip contains as much energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil. To put that into perspective: The U.S. fleet of coal plants consumes over 1 BILLION tons of coal EVERY YEAR, while the entire US nuclear fleet has produced only 63,000 tons. Period. In its entire history. If your only source of energy over your entire life was nuclear power, your energy consumption waste through your entire life would be about the size of a can of

Coke, said Jesse Jenkins, the Director of Energy and Climate at the Breakthrough Institute. In addition, caskets can safely contain the waste for hundreds of years and the waste will likely be reusable in the next generation of power plants. In contrast, coal alone produces hundreds of millions of tons of hazardous ash every year. The emissions affect human health in a direct way. They are linked to smog, acid rain, respiratory infections, toxic mercury pollution, cancer and the mining process (particularly mountain top removal); they also destroy quarries, homes and landscapes. We have a limited time frame to make difficult decisions that will shape the outcome of our future existence on Earth. If the choice is between two evils, and nuclear power is the lesser of the two, the answer is clear: the nuclear power plants should be built.

Word on the Hill:

BY JULIA STEWART AND BEAU BROUGHTON

Every Wednesday Julia and Beau set out with a fresh question for yall.

With midterms approaching, what is the light at the end of your tunnel?
Jon Satin (Hes not sure...) Logan Robertson (11) & Laura Houlberg (14) Dominique Shannon (13) Nathan Romine (14) Leah Potter-Weight (11) Danya Spencer (11)

I didnt know I had midterms.

The Piolog does not support the use of methamphetamines

A big bowl of... CENSORED

Seeing my 3 year-old sister in California.

A little bit o Ska.

The chocolate I have at home.

Praying for more snow.