Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 21, 1969)
Letters Desire vs. need Emerald editor: In the perspective of the over riding issues of conscience and events which face us today, the small personal tragedy or disap pointment seems out of place. But something happened to me today on campus which I think is important, and which seems to me to have ramifications beyond the particular event. Tonight, while I was at a class in the conference room of the Bean Dormitory Complex, my English bicycle was taken—that is, it had disappeared when I sud denly felt a need to check on it about 8 p.m. in the evening. I had left it locked, under cover next to one of the men’s dormi tories, and was really upset to find it gone. It isn’t really the fact that the bicycle is gone so much as the realization that probably whoever took it either for a prank, or be cause they saw it and wanted it. I have had the bicycle for sev eral years including the two years that I spent in Vancouver, Cana da, and I used to ride it down town into the city “slum,” where I often parked it, locked, in an alleyway, where anyone of the many drunks and poor could have taken it and hocked it for mon ey they probably needed. The fact that no one disturbed the bicycle there, but that some one from an essentially middle class university has stolen it dis turbes me. The issue seems to be centered around desire rather than need; how can we orient our collective social concerns outward into the community and the world when we are not able to exist satisfac torily within our own University community? Constance Jump 2130 Hilyard St. Athletic plot? Emerald editor: There are those people on cam pus who would like to see inter collegiate sports, for the U of 0 abolished. Some of these people are dedicated to the quest of knowledge and some are dedi cated to changing the status quo. Len Cassanova and his athletic stooge board are working hard for the demise of U of O inter collegiate athletics. How else could you explain keeping two coaches with the worst major col lege coaching records in the U.S.? Oh! Yes, you are supposed to build character not worry about winning. What type of character can be built from participation on a consistantly losing team? The U of 0 can do a better job of building character in a classroom on participating in such events as the Vietnam Moratorium. Back to banning sports which right now might not be such a bad idea. Pseudo Coach Frei, upon winning a squeeker from Washington State promptly gave the players a day off. Most coach es even at the high school level, would have had a hard knock practice, after such a close game, to iron out faults that obviously showed up. What happened next? The upset loss to San Jose State, and now, the fiasco at Air Force. How about laying off the rest of the season Coach Frei while someone else tries to make up for your mistakes! Belko like his counterpart on TV is the laughing stock of the coast. His coaching ability is practically nill and his lack of team control is notorious. Belko has had more lousy seasons than any other major college coach and yet he still hangs on. They fired Bilko on TV for a lousy season, why didn’t they fire Belko of the U of Oregon? Is this another part of the plot to get rid of athletics at the University? If the events that are happen ing now keep up, then the Uni versity will have to do one of two things: drop athletics or drop the coaches and get someone here who will fire a little spirit and imagination into the players and fans. Jim Phillips Graduate Student, Education Student deferments We are all apathetic cop-outs. We rail against the war and the involuntary servitude forced upon this country’s youth, yet we smugly accept and even fight for student deferments. This type of deferment is a bla tent example of social partiality. We willingly shift the major por tion of the responsibility for ac tion from our shoulders to the shoulders of others, whom, for reasons of heritage or environ ment are less able to handle them. We are in our apathy, taking an active part in class oppression. The draft is now “zeroing in” on the 19-year-olds, whom, for the most part, haven’t had a chance to become fully aware of what is going on. This sure takes a lot of pres sure off our heads. Aren’t we lucky. Tom Tvedten Senior, English one opinion — II. nixon and the hungry . cfratten heamd Editors note: this is the second part of a five part analysis of President Richard Nixon. Kearns is a junior majoring in history at the University. Throughout his campaign, Richard Nixon spoke at length about the needs of the “forgotten Ameri cans,” and of all the truly wonderful things he was going to do for them as President. It can now be safely said that when he talked about these for gotten folks he didn’t have in mind the millions of Americans who are chronically hungry. In January of this year, the Nixon Administra tion increased the funds allotted for food programs in the leftover Johnson budget for fiscal 1970 by only 15 million dollars, from 549 to 564 million. This pitiful addition was made despite the fact that only 44 per cent of the chronically hungry people in this country are now covered by the food stamp or surplus commodity programs. Further, this pinchpenny increase was not actually for food, but for nutritional education programs, of little use to the eight million people who need but don’t get assistance. In addition, no cuts were proposed in the 4.5 billion farm price support programs, indicating that the Nixon administration planned to spend eight times more on making food scarce than it would on feeding the hungry. ATTACKS INCREASE Senator George McGovern (D-S.D.), the most vocal proponent in the Senate of a vast expansion in U.S. food programs, attacked the Nixon increase. He immediately set off a tour of slums in the Dis trict of Columbia, and showed the accompanying reporters a cross section of the District’s hungry who have inadequate food supplements from the government. Completely embarrassed by the adverse pub licity McGovern’s tour generated, Nixon on May 7 upped the ante another 270 million for the second half of fiscal 1970, and had the audacity to declare the moment had come “to put an end to hunger in America for all time.” Beyond 1970, Nixon promised the administration would increase the food program another one billion dollars, and give families of four whose monthly incomes are under 30 dollars, 100 dollars of free food stamps a month. The 270 million, of course, was a slap in the face for the hungry; divided among the 14 million hungry people in this country, it comes to 20 dollars annually. Even the promised one billion wouldn’t do the job compared to the need. Begin ning in fiscal 1971 (Nixon didn’t say what the hun gry were to eat in the interim), 2.5 million persons could be added to the food programs, leaving 5.5 million people still uncovered. One hundred dol lars in free food stamps a month for a family of four would give each member 25 cents to purchase each meal. FREE STAMPS Obviously, the Nixon proposal was completely inadequate, and talk of ending hunger through it was cruel and deceptive. Senator McGovern count ered the President’s proposal with a bid to include all the hungry in food programs, at a total cost of three billion dollars. His bill would give 125 dol lars of free stamps a month to families with monthly incomes of less than 60 dollars, and would make participation in the programs mandatory for all counties by 1971, something the Nixon plan overlooked. 'Jcfnitasieticf RICHARD M. M\U\ However, on August 8, the day Nixon unveiled his income assistance plan, the relative worth of the administration’s food proposal seemed to have become a moot point, as White House spokesmen flatly stated that with the advent of income assist ance the food programs would be abandoned. The National Council on Hunger and Malnutri tion, in a sharp attack on this move, pointed out that such action would lower the food purchasing power of the hungry in 44 states. Senator Mc Govern charged that elimination of food programs could only be accomplished by adding six billion dollars more to the income assistance plan. Other wise, he said, the majority of the nation’s hungry would be worse off than they are now, because a family of four with no income would get 1,600 dollars a year under the income assistance plan, while it needs 1,500 dollars a year just for food. Gmbarrased by having his callous disregard for the hungry again discussed in the press, President Nixon relented on August 19, and assured news men that the administration’s food proposal of May was still a part of his overall welfare package. However, by September 25, the day Senator Mc Govern's bill was passed by the Senate, President Nixon had still not presented specific legislation for the implementation of his food proposal. No matter which plan is finally enacted, it should be obvious that the millions of people who suffer from chronic and grinding hunger cannot count themselves among the President’s “forgotten Americans.” If the hungry are to escape the high infant mortality rate, mental retardation, and stunted growth that result from malnutrition, they had best look somewhere other than the White House for help. Illllllllllllllll!lllllll Jules Feiffer omkm,tv u*e w WUM&R OF y WfflONf OOMPAW1/. Pioee. ii mr CITY & THAT, ofmm. i IX \ Ji m MO HfWI mu? wu seen MX, m& C-O-Mf'A'M'V m wMm. / one womi MOMENT ft' MAm IMraeMAW ivutew mm of m &ZZZZZZZ £ Q i I
