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
waiters whose opinions reflect those of our diverse readership and not
those of the Emerald itself.
MIKE FANCHER, Editor
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
non tacnus
Rick Fitch
Gil Johnson
Linda Melerjurgen
Cliff Sanderlln
John Sasaki
Ron Saylor
Sally Sharrard
Jean Snider
WILBUR BISHOP JR.
Business Manager
Kit H JERNSTEDT
Advertising Manager
BARBARA STONE
National Advertising Manager
University of Oregon, Eugene, Monday, January 8,1968
Big Business Abuse
Still a Reality
The Muckrackers and Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”
may be things of the past, but abuses by big business are
a reality even today.
The latest example of business placing concern for
profit ahead of product quality may well be in the tele
vision industry.
There is growing reason to suspect that some color
television sets may be extremely dangerous. Apparently
some sets have been found to produce potentially deadly
X radiation. The level of radiation may not be sufficient to
burn or damage viewers, but according to specialists it
may cause genetic damage and premature eye cataracts.
As might well be expected, television manufacturers
are publicly saying the whole problem is overrated.
One spokesman for the Electronics Industries Associa
tion was recently quoted as saying, “Whether there is
even a problem is still in the determining stage. But we
think the standards followed during the years have been
very stringent and have provided adequate safeguards. We
think this is a minor thing overall.”
Bunk! In the fall of 1966 the General Electric Co.,
Schenectady, New York, discovered it had produced some
110,000 color-TV receivers with faulty receivers. Some of
those tubes beamed up to 100,000 times more than the
agreed upon level of X radiation from the bottom of the
sets.
The GE case isn’t a completely isolated example. Other
tests have shown questionable levels of X radiation from
other brands.
The whole issue is still shrouded in much misinforma
tion and lots of studying must be done before TV viewers
can rest easy. And fortunately, in the instance of the
color-TV sets, most manufacturers seem willing to co
operate in the testing which is being conducted.
But that doesn’t answer the question of why such a
dangerous mistake was made in the first place and what
assurances can be made that other such errors won’t en
danger consumers in the future.
iiiiiiQiitut!iituiiitttimiuuiiiiiiiititii!t!iutiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiinnitNiiniiiuiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiii!iii
$o(>ert eaCoi
•OeffCt i«i::hi—.mi mini8»i • jaMMUNmum
U.S. Should Act on Principle
It Says China is Violating
Editor's Note: The following column on the
United States and Viet Nam was submitted by
Robert Leeper, a professor of psychology at the
University.
The age group that is paying most heavily
for the war in Viet Nain—and that will continue
to pay and pay and pay—is obviously the col
lege-age group. Consequently, at the start of this
new year, it is important for them to see certain
facts clearly and bluntly.
The Administration says it wants to make an
honorable peace, but that it cannot because the
"enemy” won’t negotiate.
The facts are. however, that the means to stop
the war, honorably and with infinite gain to the
whole world, are entirely with our own power.
The war can be stopped now.
Does this mean that we should "surrender to the
enemy"? Not at all. Instead, all that we need
to do is to start acting on the principle that we
say China is violating. We insist that China is un
worthy of membership in the United Nations,
and especially is unworthy of its intended per
manent seat on the Security Council, because
China uses force to interfere in the internal af
fairs of other countries.
Any nation should be treated as an outlaw, we
insist, that persistently makes an “attempt to ex
tend power across international frontiers,” to
quote President Johnson's chief adviser, Walt Ros
tow.
Let’s agree that this principle deserves such
heavy emphasis as we have placed on it. But,
let us note that it presumably applies to us as
well as to other countries.
Let us note that it presumably implies, not
merely that each country should refrain from ini
tiating such interference in the internal affairs of
any other country, but that, when a country comes
to realize that it has violated this principle, it
should of course stop its brazen attempt to extend
power across international frontiers.
How would all this apply to our war in Viet
Nam?
Our active involvement began in 1953 and
’54, when President Eisenhower’s administration
provided the major part of the funds and military
supplies to help France continue its fruitless ef
fort. to re-establish colonial rule over Viet Nam,
Cambodia, etc.
Yet in his “Mandate For Change," Eisenhower
later said, in an oft-misquoted passage on p.
372: "I have never talked or corresponded with u
person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs, who
did not agree that had elections been held as of
the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of
.the population would have voted for the Commu
nist Mo Chi Minh as their leader rather than
Chief of State Bao Dai" (head of the French -
supported regime).
In other words, we used our military resources
to try to help establish a regime in the face of
a 4 to 1 majority against it.
The situation is not different today. It would
be preposterous to say that the American forces
would have been fought to a standstill if the
Vietnamese people still did not feel, with ter
rific intensity, that we ought to get out.
If China were caught in such a situation, us
ing our means of war to try to bolster a regime
favorable to China's interests in a country where
only a small minority were grateful for their pres
ence, what would we say if the Chinese protested,
"We would like to make an honorable end to this
war, but we can’t because the ’enemy’ won't ne
gotiate"?
How long would it take us to develop the idea,
“You really don't need to negotiate, you know;
all that you need to do is this very honorable act:
Admit your mistake and get out, maybe taking
your cronies with you so they won’t be murdered
like Diem was"?
If this prescription would be sensible and even
mandatory for China, wherein would it be less
sensible for us.
iiMiButHBUJwwE.’iiarattin
Emerald Editor
To Mr. Spohn
Emerald Editor:
Regarding Mr. Greg Spohn’s
letter (or should I say, “the
letter of Mr. Spohn and Mr. 1st
Year Law”?) in the Emerald
of December 5:
1. Mr. Dennis Phillips is a
student, as he himself will sure
ly inform you; Mr. Los Amigos
is not: he is a student organi
zation with which Mr. Phillips
is affiliated.
2. Neither of them demon
strates more sheep-like quali
ties than Mr. Spohn. Who but
a mutton-head would object to
“questioning the things that
have made the world the way it
is . . . ”? Good grief—is he sug
gesting that we be satisfied with
the way things are?
3. As for questioning one’s
existence: while I am reason
ably convinced that I exist, I
would respectfully submit that
Mr. Spohn is unreal!
4. While it is true that “le
galization of marijuana is a
question for the lawmakers of
our country," Mr. Spohn seems
to forget that someone must
bring the question to their at
tention. Who better than
“young student hippies and agi
tators," along with other con
cerned citizens who want to
see justice done?
5. Finally, Mr. Spohn is cor
rect in defending Miss Daugh
ity’s right to express her opinion:
could he not bring himself to
accord this same right to Mr.
Phillips?
Susan Buckles
Sociology, Sophomore
* * •
Why Only Hiller?
Emerald Editor:
I have several questions in
regards to the articles by Messrs.
Fitz and Watson.
Or maybe I should say, why
just Hitler? Why not Joseph
Stalin, too?
Although Stalin’s crimes
against humanity arc less well
known, or perhaps better con
An Introduction to the Conrad Cartoon
r
The Pope wanted you to have the St. Christopher medal,
Luci ... He gave me this other one!”
“It’s got a bad heart, all right . . . but where arc we
going to find a donor?”
■
cealed, than Hitler's, they are
probably as extensive, if not
more so, especially in terms
of the number of people destroy
ed.
Or are we to overlook the
Katyn Forest massacre, the liq
uidation of the Kulaks, the mass
deportation of the Chechen-In
£ush to Siberia, and Stalin’s
execution of fellow Communists?
Are we to forget who was Hit
ler's ally in the partitioning of
Poland in 1939?
And should the United States
be condemned for aiding Sta
lin, since he, too, “collaborated”
with the Nazis? Rather than
comparing President Johnson
to Hitler, Mr. Watson, why didn't
you write, "Stalin may be alive
in the White House today.”
Does Marxism give some spe
cial sanctity to Stalin, or for
that matter, to any Commu
nist crimes against humanity?
Why not be fair and unbias
ed? Next time you feel the ne
cessity of raising the spector of
“monsters,” either past or pres
ent, do not discriminate against
those that carry out their
crimes against humanity in the
name of Marxism-Lcnninism.
But better yet, why not temper
your rantings with just a little
objectivity?
Warren W. Tozer
Graduate, History
A Reaction
Emerald Editor:
Well, you have done gone and
did it again.
I warned you once how Ig
natz reacted to that sort of
thing, but you chose to ignore
me. Now kindly observe my tri
pre-spaced, typewritten, ink -
signed song of woe.
I was roused from blissful
slumber early one a m. by a
wild scream of agony from the
front room. It was like the yell
of a damned soul. Bits of loose
plaster from the ceiling of my
palatial sleeping chamber sprin
kled my face. I rushed out, in
a tangle of blankets.
Ignatz, my roommate, sat be
fore the fireplace with a dead
match in one hand and a dead
nowspaper in the other. Tears
trickled untidily down his nose.
“Look,” he blubbered. “Look,
They did it again.”
While lighting the fire that
morning, he had glanced at the
kindling and chanced on the
(Continued on page 11)