Oregon Daily Emerald
Opinions expressed on the editorial page are those of the Emerald and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of the ASUO or the University.
However, the Emerald does present on this page columnists and letter
writers whose opinions reflect those of our diverse readership and not those
of the Emerald Itself.
PHIL SEMAS. Editor
WILBUR BISHOP JR„ Business Manager
ANNETTE BUCHANAN
Managing Editor
MIKE FANCHER
News Editor
LARRY LANGE
Associate Editor
CAROLINE PITMAN
Advertising Manager
CLIFF SANDERLIN
Editorial Page Editor
NOMI BORENSTEIN
Associate Editor
University of Oregon, Eugene, M*ad«y. Nevewber «t, 1996
A Republican
In’ 68? Maybe
Except for the results in California and Alabama. Tues
day’s election contained some heartening signs. But things
don’t look too bright for those of us who had hoped for an
indication that there might be a change coming in our
country’s bankrupt foreign policy.
In California, of course, the voters made the greatest
mistake they have ever made. They put in office a con
servative in moderate's clothing, a man with little under
standing of the massive problems facing the state, few pro
posals for solving them, and with no administrative experi
ence other than heading an actor’s union. We can only hope
that the idiocy that put Ronald Reagan in office will not
carry over to the rest of the nation.
Alabama isn’t as bad, perhaps only because it was ex
pected. The victory of Lurleen and George is a blow against
the progressive movement in the South, but it is balanced
by other encouraging signs.
In Maryland, voters rejected George Mahoney, a six-time
loser and segregationist candidate, in favor of Republican
Spiro Agnew for governor.
I
In Georgia, right in the heart of the deep south, arch
segregationist Lester Maddox may win over Republican
Howard “Bo” Callawray, but if he does it will be just slightly.
And Mr. Callaway could just as easily win.
In Arkansas moderate Republican Winthrop Rockefeller
defeated segregationist Jim Johnson.
We find the Republican resurgence somewhat heartening,
not because the Republicans have much to offer but because
it indicates some rejection of the man in the White House.
The election means that it will be much tougher for LBJ
to win in 1968. Either the Republicans may beat him out
right or the Democrats may realize he is going to lose and
will find a more acceptable candidate, like Robert F. Ken
nedy.
One reason the Republicans have a good chance of taking
the White House in 1968 is that they seem more likely to
nominate a candidate who will be acceptable to the Ameri
can voter, though they obviously failed to do so in the last
presidential election. Except for Reagan the Republicans
elected mostly moderates, notably George Romney in Michi
gan, Chuck Percy in Illinois, Nelson Rockefeller in New
York, Edward Brooke in Massachusetts, and Mark Hatfield
in Oregon. That gives moderates a good possibility to put
someone like Romney at the head of the ticket, instead of
losers like Dick Nixon or Reagan.
So maybe we’ll get Lyndon out of the White House in ’68.
The man most likely to unseat Johnson is Romney. Rom
ney’s foreign policy stand hasn’t even been fuzzy. It’s non
existent. Men like Percy and Hatfield are more to our liking
but both are too young. And after Hatfield’s lackluster
performance as Oregon’s governor we must question his
ability to handle even the vice presidency.
If the Republicans win in 1968 there will probably be
changes in domestic policy. Some of it would be good in
that it may end our spiraling inflation. Some of it could be
bad in that it could lessen government’s commitment to
solving the social problems of the nation. But it seems
unlikely that there would be any kind of major shift in
foreign policy.
In short, none of the presidential possibilities for 1968—
except perhaps Robert Kennedy—offer the promise of any
really new directions that many saw in John Kennedy.
! Emerald Editor
All letters to the editor must
be typewritten and double
spaced. Letters must not ex
ceed 300 words and must be
signed in ink, giving the class
and major of the writer. Those
dealing with one subject and
pertaining to the University or
Eugene community will be giv
en preference. The Emerald re
serves the right to edit letters
for style, grammar, punctuation,
and potentially libelous content.
Letters not meeting these cri
teria and those which are mim
eographed or otherwise obvious
duplicates will be returned.
Progress
Emerald Editor:
Now that the election is over
perhaps we can proceed to dis
cuss less trivial matters in the
Emerald. My own thoughts
seem to be rambling more and
more atield without a political
burden to get In the way.
Example: Has anybody notic
ed that large gray squirrel with
a magnificent tail near the li
brary every morning? That tail
of his—what a status symbol
to squirreldom it must be: not
only for balance and warmth
at night, but for his general
good looks as well.
Makes me think back to about
20 million years ago when our
ancestors had tails They prob
ably spent a good deal of time
beautifying them with a va
riety of methods. However, in
the interests of practicality we
have since lost our tails, moved
on to other areas, and are pres
ently in the process of losing our
heads. Progress.
This is why hair has become
such a modern hang up We’re
compensating for the frustra
tion of losing our tails.
Hair is all we have left. It
can be rolled, flipped, twisted,
teased, straightened, curled,
cut, dyed, tinted, streaked,
bleached, tipped, waved, set.
and generally messed up in
thousands of ways tor both men
and women. One more example
of 20th century freedom.
It's obvious that we lost quite
a bit when we came down out
of the trees
Steve Immer
Graduate. History
■a A a
SU Board Understands
Emerald Editor:
In regard to your editorial of
November 10 concerning the
Student Union Board, the Em
erald seems to have sevoral mis
conceptions about the board and
its letter to President Flem
ming.
The first point 1 wish to clear
up is that the board is not "a
self-perpetuating body which
is basically not responsible to
the wishes of students."
The board is, like the Senate,
a representative body of the stu
dents. The SU Board is repre
sentative of the students in a dif
ferent way than the Senate, how
ever; it is composed of members
of the various schools, along
with ASUO and faculty repre
sentatives.
It is truly representative,
perhaps more than the senate.
This is evidenced by the poor
turnout at elections.
The SU Board has complete
understanding of the proposal.
Any decisions whether admin
istrative or policy, will be de
layed by passing through the
Senate. If administrative deci
sions were suspended by the
ASUO president, the delay
could be hazardous because, as
you say, these are decisions that
have to be made quickly.
It is not so outlandish that
the board might take over the
Senate. The board knows what
is right for the students’ union;
the Senate knows nothing about
the SU, except what it covets
from the SU, like more space
Good Job Harry, |
Nana, and Nipsey ’
Is Harry Belafonte a pro at building audience rapport? Would
you believe it if you heard all the sober, book-fatigued, and tradi
tionally reserved Oregonians belting out “Matilda” with him in
Mac Court, purging their souls of depression-Oregon-style?
Would you believe it if you saw him chastise a girl in the floor
section for looking at him through binoculars? “You don’t want to
miss a thing,” he said, pulling the front of his shirt collar to
gether and looking back at her through his hand-mike.
Anyone who saw the performance Friday will have to join me
in endorsing Belafonte and the two entertainers sharing his stage
and sound system. He and Greek folk singer Nana Mouskouri and
comedian Nipsey Russell presented the finest, most coherent
evening of entertainment I have ever seen at this University.
Belafonte, I endorse you.
>
"TH'S TIME I'MGOI/OG TO SHOW Yovl MY SCARS’.7
and tables all over the lobby
and terrace.
Finally, the board does have
an effective answer; the struc
ture should remain the same.
There is no problem here As
far as 1 can sec, the Senate
only sees the board through its
jaundiced eyes and It thinks
there is a problem because it
doesn't get what it wants.
It is a misconception to think
that the Senate’s problems are
the students' problems or that
the Senate is really the only
representative body of all the
students.
In theory, tip* Senate is rep
resentative of all, but not in
practice. If a student has a com
plaint about SU policy, he
should go to the board member
in his school, or to a member
at-large.
If the Senate has a complaint,
the Senate board member should
be the one the senators see. It’s
the ASUO Senate that has prob
lems. not the Student Union
Board
Mark Stephens
Sophomore. Business
Administration Chairman,
SU Personnel Committee
m * *
Questions for the Co-op
Emerald Editor:
Perhaps someone from the
Accounting and Business Sta
tistics department should take
a careful look at the balance
sheet of the Co-op, published in
the November 15 Emerald.
Is it true that the profits of
“the students’ store” amounted
to 8.7 per cent of sales'1 (I be
lieve that supermarkets make a
profit on sales of 2 per cent or
less, and this is supposed to be
a record year for them!)
Is it true that profits amount
ed to 19.8 per cent of invest
ment, denoted “land, building
and equipment”? (I thought
anything over 10 per cent Was
supposed to be an extraordinar
ily good return.)
Is it true that profits not re
funded last year represented 11
per cent of all such profits re
tained in the business previous
ly, 1920 to 1965? (Just invest
ing the present $543,500 retain
ed earnings total at 5 per cent
would next year produce over
$27,000, which is over half the
total of this past year’s retained
earnings.
Present earnings “retained for
expansion” are almost as great
as the present total value of
land, building and equipment.
There could be quite on ex
pansion just on what they al
ready have got
Is it true that the 1966 earn
ings not refunded to Co-op
members represented 39.4 per
cent of the year’s total earn
ings?
That is also 62.3 per cent of
the amount that was actually
refunded. This was about the
same thing that happened last
year, if memory serves. Would
it not be possible to increase the
refund rate this year from 10
per cent to 15 per cent?
James L. flutter
Graduate, Political
Science
* * *
Not Ashamed
Emerald Editor:
Miss Fioretti was correct
about one thing, and that is that
we had no intention whatso
ever to imply that we were
ashamed of the color black—
the opposite is true.
But why can’t it ever be said
if the player is a Negro that
“such and-such is a good foot
ball player” rather than saying
“such-and-such is a good Negro
football player.” I’m sure the
school could care less what
color he is.
Why go to the trouble of set
ting him apart? I thought the
object of the sign was to name
the great football players, not
to name the great football play
ers and the great Negro football
player.
Furthermore, the word mole
holes was a misprint, the editor
meant to type molehills . . .
that’s what painting the duck
black is the same as making
mountains out of.
Pat Martin
Senior, Psychology