Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012, October 28, 1980, Section A, Page 5, Image 5

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Re-elect Burrows to District 41 seat
Dist. 41 Rep. Mary Burrows and Democratic
challenger Steve Hauck differ very little
ideologically, but Burrows’ eight-year record in
the Oregon Legislature singles her out as the best
choice in the race.
First elected in 1972, Burrows has been a
house leader in tax reform legislation, landlord
tenant law, and in establishing the Land Conser
vation and Development Commission. She also
has served as chairperson of the equipment sub
committee of the Willamette Valley Rail Study
Committee and as vice-chairperson of the Hous
ing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Local
Government Committee.
Hauck’s only political experience is as a
precinct committeeperson.
He does have some good ideas, however.
Hauck realizes the importance energy policy will
play in Oregon's future, and says he will push for
alternative energy technologies such as solar,
geothermal and wind energy. He has also shown
concern and understanding about the $200 mil
lion shortfall in state revenue and the need to
diversify the local economy.
Unfortunately for Hauck, those stands don’t
offer us anything we don’t have already in Bur
rows. And by electing Burrows we’re sure of
electing a competent legislator and an exper
ienced representative who knows how to work in
the Oregon Legislature.
Burrows’ description of Hauck as “being
where I was eight years ago” may be the best
synopsis of the race. It takes more than good ideas
to be effective in Salem. Burrows has the addi
tional elements — legislative experience and a
good record. She deserves another term as
representative of Dist. 41.
Harlan Ellison
Jody Murray's 'article' on Harlan Elli
son is the worst attempt at journalism I
have seen in print outside the National
Enquirer. Seldom has such a mish-mash
of half-heard and misunderstood mis
quotations and quotes-out-of-context
been suffered to appear in the full light of
To title the piece 'Sci-fi Writer Beams
Down’ was bad enough, though I admit
Ms. Murray may have had no hand in
that. Ellison called the expression 'sci-fi'
a 'ghastly neologism’ (that means ‘horri
ble new expression’, Ms. Murray) at least
three times during the lecture, and takes
great pains to see that no such designa
tion (or any other categorization) ap
pears on his books. To add insult to
injury in referring, however obliquely, to
STAR TREK, a series which Ellison made
it clear he despises, is a contemptible
attempt at cuteness which even the ODE
should have outgrown by now.
The list goes on at embarrassing
length. The quote about the Anderson
funds was taken completely out of con
text and was an aside having nothing to
do with Ellison's purpose in doing the
benefit lecture. I can think of several
other news issues Ellison touched on,
including the campaigns of Ed Clark and
Barry Commoner, 'Billygate', and
(ahem!) the ‘holy war’ in Northern
Ireland; if Ms. Murray thought the newest
Middle East War was the ‘only other
news issue Ellison touched upon,' she
wasn’t listening - she was not doing her
And to have the staggeringly flawed
perception to compare Ellison’s writer’s
inspirations with the Second Coming . . .
my God, it is to laugh. No one who was
really "all there”, in that audience, could
have walked out with the feeling that the
Second Coming, or anything else involv
ing conventional religious orthodoxy,
could ever leave Harlan Ellison with an
ything more than a sick headache or a
serious case of the giggles.
Ellison said, "re" science fiction and
fantasy: "I can’t stand to read most of it."
Some of it he does read, a great deal
more is not worth reading. His favorite
writers are not ‘sci-fi’ writers - they’re
writers, damn it. Moorcock, Wolfe, Wil
helm: yes, they write science fiction
Sometimes. They also write other things,
and they do so superbly well.
Richard Brautigan will be on campus
next month. I have my biases: I don’t
think he is as good a writer. The ODE
has, in this instance, done Harlan Ellison
a great disservice; I hope Brautigan’s
appearances will be covered and
covered accurately, by someone of the
ODE staff who takes the time to know
what the hell they’re doing.
Michael E. Stamm
Graduate Secretary, English department
(Editor’s note: Jody Murray Is male.)
On abortion issue
Marsha Kraus, a member of Women’s
Referral and Resource Service, is quoted
(“Christians Fight Abortion" - Oct. 16) as
saying a fetus of less than three months
old is “nothing more than mass of tis
sue.” This is either one of the most
ill-informed statements to be offered by
the pro-abortion faction or a malicious
distortion and prevarication.
At threee months old the unborn baby
(fetus) has allot his/her organ systems
functioning (breathes, swallows, digests,
urinates, etc.), is sensitive to pain and
noise and adjusts position to get com
fortable. As anyone who has looked at
pictures of the fetal development knows,
the child is easily recognizable as a
human being much before three months.
At two months the unborn baby will grab
at things. By six weeks human brain
activity has begun. The baby's heart beat
can be detected at about 18 days, which
is generally before the mother even
knows she is pregnant. In fact, at
conception, the unborn child is a unique
individual possessing 46 chromosomes
and alive (e.g., capable of replacing
his/her own dying cells). Quite a list of
accomplishments for a “mass of tissue."
However, the distortion of Ms. Kraus’
statement has even broader implications
since abortions may be and are legally
performed far after three months and far
after the point at which the baby can
survive to live a normal life.
The fundamental question is, when is
the fetus a live human being? I believe it
is at conception. From whatever point a
person believes the fetus is a live human
being (guilty of no crime warranting
capital punishment), abortion is murder.
If the medical and scientific facts are not
persuasive to you, and if you have a
strong stomach, try to arrange to ob
serve an abortion procedure and ask
yourself what you think of the “mass of
One unborn baby is killed every 30
seconds by abortion. Over 1,200,000
abortions are performed every year. If
abortion is murder, as many (most?) of us
believe, then there have been millions of
murders paid for by the government out
of our taxes.
There are numerous arguments used
to support abortion (mother’s choice,
rape, incest, discrimination against the
poor, unwanted children, etc ). I encour
age you to become informed. Investigate
even these issues. For example, talk to
someone who wants to adopt a baby,
and you will find that children are very
much wanted but generally unavailable.
Today, abortion is legal. Our courts
have so decided. Unborn babies are not
“persons.” In 1857, in the Dred Scott
decision, the court ruled that blacks were
not “persons.” Their owners were legally
entitled to even kill them. This legal
status was changed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Today, the Dred Scott
decision is utterly reprehensible to us.
We know that killing a slave in 1857 may
have been legal, but it was still murder.
The same is true of abortion.
Robert G. Bowman
Associate Professor of Accounting
Open your eyes
Please allow me to relate an exper
ience I had the other day. I was walking
back from an afternoon class with two
girls whom I had just met. In that class we
had been discussing some controversial
issues, and that conversation continued
as we walked through campus. The sub
ject of the proposed equal rights
amendment arose.l was shocked, and let
me even say flabbergasted, when I heard
the opinion of these two students of
higher liberal education.
They opposed the passage of the ERA
solely for the reason that their sorority
president told them to do so. The pre
sident explained that its passage would
mean that males might legally have the
right to go through sorority rush. Further,
they might even be forced to have men
join their house.
Hiding behind a veil of narrow-minded
self-interest, these girls had no minds of
their own. I then pointed out to them that
the benefits derived from the ERA might
outweigh the detriments that might befall
their sorority house. Before any further
arguments developed, we went our
separate ways.
The point here is not to form any der
ogatory generalizations upon the Greek
system or any other system as a whole.
What is important to be seen here is that
we must look past our sorority doors, so
to speak. We as students must see
beyond the concerns we develop as we
play this four year game. We, as the
decision makers of the future, cannot be
so caught up in our own vested
self-interests. Don’t let yourself be
processed through the University of
Oregon with your eyes shut. As the old
saying goes, don't let the blind lead the
blind. Open your eyes and open your
Keith Yam
Senior, Finance