Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 2, 1980)
opinion yours Pull heads out I guess the best I had hoped for in the Emerald s post-election comment was some in-depth discussion of possible threats to civil liberties posed by the Reagan election And indeed, we could legitimately focus concern in that direc tion in view of Reagan s positions on abortion, the ERA, and church-state separation. But in the several Emerald issues I saw, it seemed that the University’s pun dits are less concerned with potential demises of civil liberties and much more concerned with potential demises of government control over the economic lives of American citizens. Instead I saw thinly-veiled front page editorials lamenting the demise of "New Deal liberalism" and another large spoonful of puerile statist bromides from Greg Was son about 'Tve-got-mine-so-fuck-you economics.” You really wonder if these people will ever discover that people simply want more economic freedom and have been wanting it for years. A popular mythology in this institu tion's sociology courses has it that a "rich class" of plutocrats controls the majority of this country’s wealth, and thus, all we need for instant “progres sivism" is for people who “know better” to confiscate that wealth and redistribute it The truth is that the vast majority of the nation's wealth and upward mobility is generated by a huge middle class which is struggling to hold on to what it has earned Several years ago, I saw some Treasury Dept, statistics showing that in 1975 only 1,149 individuals made over $1 million If you confiscated everything those people earned, it would pay cur rent levels of government spending for less than one day. But suppose you went after the real "fat cats,” people who make over $32,000 per year. Suppose you confiscated all incomes over that level. You would be able to pay current levels of government spending for about a week But the economic Stalins know that. So in 1972 they supported George McGovern, who may have taken a few sociology classes because he decided to confiscate the majority of all incomes over $12,000, i.e. almost all the wealth of millions of hard-working Americans, who could hardly be "rich.” McGovern got bombed in the 1972 election. Jimmy Carter got bombed for essentially the same reason. Millions of people from every economic strata voted those people down. And despite the rich-people-as-nigger caricatures taught in sociology classes, not all of those people wear silk top hats and weigh 800 pounds It is time for Academia to realize that people want to be able to keep more of the money they earn and they want it to be worth something This does not mean they support the Torquemada Right. So it is time for the University intellectuals to pull their heads out of the sand and start thinking (a) of some non-government methods for helping the poor, and (b) of some methods to help the poor them selves After the intellectuals do a little blinking in the daylight, they will notice that the 30s are over (hell, the ’60s are over). And: "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. " (I waited 12 years to say that Boy it feels good ) Gaines Smith Community Education, Journalism More on Oregqna The article on the Oregana demise in the Nov. 19 Emerald had a few omissions A 'R*6WE ME,M6KN0N,Bur I RENOY MUST BE RUNNING ALONG. THERE'S A G&tfL£MM HERE TO SEME FB3M THE FEtSWi BURENJ OF EXCESSIVE SOW'S VIOLENCE.' I would like to comment on. Firstly, it is not necessarily true that the Oregana would need a subsidy to be published again. There are technical and man agement means that would make the publication profitable even at low sales volume, and altering the nature of the book could increase that volume as well. It is true that the Oregana would need strong “support” in terms of investment, staff, equipment and expertise. Secondly, and in contrast, I would like to point out that over the past seven years the Oregana has consistently had low sales, averaging about 1,200 copies a year. For five of those years the Oregana's price was under $10, a price par or below that of even high school yearbooks in Oregon. The $18 price on this year’s Oregana had an influence on our sales volume, but the total market for yearbooks at the University is obviously small to begin with. A subsidized annual here would make no sense, since such subsidized books tend to accumulate even larger expenses than the now defunct Oregana, and since very few University students want an annual, regardless of price. Let’s remember that the Oregana was dropped before in 1969 because of too little interest. That disin terest has held firm over the past decade. My feeling is that if a specialized pub lication like the Oregana can not pay its own way in the long haul, it should not be published (that is not my feeling about news or service publications such as the ODE or Guide). That was the decision reached by the EMU, ASUO and IFC, and I stand by it. I agree with Jon Neiderbach’s com ment that students have to foot the bill for “overly optimistic financial predictions” made by administrators. I share Jon's concern that students have little or no recourse when these predictions fail. I feel my own predictions were not overly optimistic, especially when they were revised this fall, but past Oregana editors have consistently made that error. Jon was judging the Oregana on its past example, not on my presumed ability. I feel disappointed both in the inaccuracy of my first predictions, and in Jon’s lack of faith in my revised predictions, but I must agree with his principle. Students on the whole should not be forced to foot the bill posthumously for a special group's expenditures, nor for that group’s poor management. David Raymond Jones Oregana Editor Expand wire news The Daily Emerald publishes an aver age of two and half pages of local col legiate sports every day, yet only a small fraction of a page is given over every few days to national and international news. Since expanding the Emerald with addi tional pages is not feasible, I would like to question the priorities used in allocating the space that is available. In a world of constant change and turmoil, I believe students should have the opportunity to read news that affects and embodies a large number of the world’s population rather than a tiny fraction of it. University of Oregon students pay over $82,000 a year through incidental fees to support the Daily Emerald. The Emerald spends nearly $300 a month to receive continual national and international news updates from the Associated Press. As citizens of a nation that wields more economic and military force than any other on the globe, I believe students need to be well-informed about world events, and the Emerald has a clear responsibility to provide such informa tion. Christian Gunther Sophomore, undeclared Wasson knows Before I read Mr. Wasson’s column (Nov. 22) I had many incorrect ideas. I believed trying to share Christianity with someone was an act of caring. I thought God was a loving being who creates life. I thought the Christian ethic or “dogma’’ to love one another was a beautiful idea I also thought Christ’s sacrifice was a necessary, meaningful and many-facet ed act. But I guess Mr. Wasson knows better. I thought Christianity (brotherly love) was a glorious idea and that it was man that corrupted it into a policy of "man ifest destiny.” But Mr. Wasson told me how Christianity breeds contept and how Christianity leads to imperialism. I guess Mr. Wasson knows better. I thought martyrdom was a great act. For me, to die for my brother was the ultimate in giving. I used to wonder where people like Martin Luther King would be if they had cringed at the thought of dying while searching for a “meaningful solution.” And I believed martyrdom was the bravest and greatest expression of love. But I guess Mr. Was son knows better. As for Jerry Falwell, I’ve never met him, nor heard him speak, nor read any of his literature. But I assume Mr. Wasson, in his objectivity, has researched the man so I guess I’ll go along with Mr. Wasson’s judgment of Mr. Falwell being "Mr. Foul well.” In days past I would have practiced the Christian ethic "Thou shall not judge.” But I guess Mr Wasson knows better. As I stated before, I used to believe Jesus’ crucifiction was a great sacrifice, a meaningful event and was of multi faceted importance. I used to think both God and Jesus weighed all the meanings and facets and that they both saw that the physical death was of lesser impor tance. But Mr. Wasson weighed all the meanings and facets and judged them inconsequential to Jesus' physical life. I guess Mr. Wasson knows better. I used to think we should love our fellow man. I often considered that em pathy to all viewpoints was part of that love. But I agree with Mr. Wasson Those Christian zealots don’t know anything about what they’re talking about. We shouldn’t listen to them at all, we should just ignore them. However, let us try to make these dumb zealots more tolerant and understanding, like us. After all, isn’t our sense of relativism the only way to live? Matthew T. Ruane Freshman, Anthropology Half-baked ideas I find the half-baked ideas of Greg Wasson (Nov. 24) a sad commentary on contemporary reason. This second-year law student is frustrated because a woman would rather share her ideas than her body. He then accuses the Christian of being a mindless zealot and subsequently mindlessly rejects her ideas. He then goes on to accuse Chris tianity as being arrogant, mindless and useless. I contend that Christianity is a reasonable position to hold and it is not Christianity that I am here defending, but reason. I suggest that the hypocritical law student spend less time "sitting at home smoking joints and listening to rock and roll’’ and more time contemplating his own life and values. C.A. Foreman Graduate student, Education
