Editorial

It’s moments like this that give bald women a bad name. Once again Cheapo is at the cutting edge of the country's consciousness. The Heights troubles with the "Jim and Tammy" advertisement foreshadowed the incidents of the past week. Our store learned first hand how serious people take religious figures. Sinead O’Connor caused a similar ripple of controversy when she ripped up a picture of the Pope during last week's "Saturday Night Live".

Not having seen the show nor knowing the details of her motivation, it's difficult to criticize or applaud her actions. Supposedly the rippage was a protest against the Catholic Church’s continued oppression of women (hardly a news flash); and how O’Connor blames the atmosphere of that oppression for some of the abuse she endured as a girl. The outcry that followed is akin to the standard anger people display after any desecration of a sacred symbol -like the burning of a flag. However this country's hypocrisy was on display the past week during the second straight appearance of the Atlanta Braves in baseball's National League Championship series. Why is the American Indian's protest (led by Clyde Bellecourt) against the Atlanta fan's obnoxious and racist "tomahawk chop" dismissed as silliness from a "fringe" group? Is it that in a sporting arena any activity is acceptable as long as it is i n the name of fun? Or can it be mainstream America still regards the Indians as less than real citizens so the ridicule of "their" symbols is to be tolerated while a serious symbolic protest against a religious figure is seen as blasphemous?

This isn't to say what O’Connor did is on par with the insensitivity demonstrated by the Brave's fans. Obviously she gave much more thought to the response she would get compared to any of the "tomahawk choppers. Still, her demonstration was an ineffective reaction to a serious issue. There isn't anything funny in what she did, nor is it amusing to think there still is a football team named the "Redskins". Perhaps it is time even in the litigious society we live in, to start being more sensitive to the different beliefs and groups of people that form our society. O’Connor obviously meant to stir up controversy. But wouldn't it have been more effective to articulate her concerns'(perhaps in a song -allegedly what she does best) rather than behave in a way which only drew attention to herself, rather than what she was attempting to "say"? The focus of the past week wasn't on the philosophy of the Catholic Church, but rather on O’Connor's continued controversial behavior.

* * * * * * * *

A couple of comments on a few of the past week's contributions. I greatly enjoyed Mark Lethert's article last week. I was flattered to be compared to Glenda Jackson. I also enjoyed Denise's list of restaurants to eat at in St. Paul for less than five dollars. I only disagreed with the Old City Café (what is that stuff?) and would add the Lagoon which is a Vietnamese restaurant (where the waitress sits with you if you are alone) near our State Capitol. I also thought Al's postcards were highly entertaining. I especially was amused by his "rain" story. It sounded like it was a fun trip. Welcome home.