opinion_
IJK greg wesson
a quorum of one
The waning, if not the death, of liberalism has
intensified my search for the silver linings. And,
without too many logical contortions, they are
often found.
Consider U S. Supreme Court Justice William
"Click your heels when you say that” Rehnquist, a
56-year-old walking argument for mandatory re
tirement from the federal bench. Rehnquist’s
writings and opinions show that he’s dedicated to
fulfilling ex-Pres. Nixon's promise to thwart the
judicial revolution begun in the ’60s by the more
liberal Warren Court.
Still, hope comes from the strangest places.
One of Rehnquist’s reactionary convictions is
that the federal government ought to get the hell
out of the state’s business. The justice just put on
hold a lower court decision holding that Oregon’s
prisons are overcrowded and that the state has to
reduce the population.
The Rehnquist ruling is a set-back for those
seeking to improve the lot of those society has
decided should be warehoused away.
And, don't forget passage of the Northwest
power bill despite highly unpopular opposition by
Jim Weaver, Oregon’s fiesty 4th district represen
tative. The Weav gave the fight his best shot, but
the utility-backed legislation steamrolled through
a Congress concerned more about staying friends
with those holding enough money to get them
reelected than with the people they ostensibly
serve. However, truth runs deep and Oregonians
exposed to the legislation are beginning to realize
how poorly the state was treated.
Like my mother always said, look for the good.
How about this: Jim Weaver is liable to be
Oregon’s next governor? As voters gain an un
derstanding of the continued subsidies the bill
contains of the aluminum industry, as they realize
that a large portion of the bill is a financial bailout
for utilities that invested heavily in nuclear power
rather than development of alternatives that didn’t
offer the same dollar return, they’re sure to say,
“Weav, you were for us, we are for you.”
It seems a foregone conclusion that Weaver
plans to run for the statehouse. It may seem
foolish, but like KLCC’s Gerry Mackie says, "It was
silly for him to go for the 4th district, but he’s won
that a number of times.”
On abortion
On Jan. 22, 1973 the United States
Supreme Court granted an un
precedented right to one minority,
women of childbearing age, the right to
chooose to kill other human beings, their
unborn children. In the same year in Roe
v Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme
Court ruled that the unborn child,
throughout the entire gestation, is not a
person within the meaning of the Four
teenth Amendment which guarantees to
persons equal protection under the law
and the right not to be deprived by the
state of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law.
The Court declined to decide whether
the unborn child is a living human being.
Instead, it ruled that, whether or not he is
human being, he is not a person. In
holding that the unborn child is a non
person the Supreme Court adopted the
theory of the Dred Scott case of 1857:
that free descendants of slaves could not
be citizens because slaves were property
rather than persons The framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended
to reverse the Dred Scott decision by
ensuring that all human beings would be
treated as persons. Consequently, the
Supreme Court, in its 1973 rulings, chose
a rationale used by the Nazis in their
extermination of the Jews: that innocent
human life can be destroyed in the pur
suit of a solution. The Court has ad
vocated the Hegelian principle of prag
matism: what is useful is right. The Nazis
termed this extermination the "final
solution."
The knowledgeable pro-abortionists
are not denying that the unborn is living
and that abortion kills this being. What
they are saying is that some human be
ings may be destroyed because they are
unwanted, imperfect or inconvenient.
What they are offering women of child
bearing age is a solution.
Christine Beltran
Eugene
El Salvador
As Ronald Reagan takes office, the
United States is becoming increasingly
embroiled in what has potential to be a
new Vietnam: the broadening civil war in
El Salvador. The question is not: will the
Reagan administration intervene in the
conflict? Rather, we must ask: will Pres.
Reagan and his advisers step up the flow
of aid to the Salvadorean government
and paramilitary forces? Will the U S.
send troops, perhaps the Rapid De
ployment Force, to put down the popular
uprising?
The State Department and media
would have us belive that a “moderate"
junta is caught in a shoot-out between
right and left wing “extremists'' in El
Salvador. In countless instances, how
ever, government forces have par
ticipated in the unspeakable brutal mas
sacres of Salvadorean people. With the
right-wing ORDEN, for example, were
the National Guard and the Armies of El
Salvador and Honduras when 600 pea
sants were slaughtered in a few hours at
Rio Sumpul last May 14. Government
forces were also clearly implicated in the
killings of the six leaders of the
Democratic Revolutionary Front and the
four American missionaries late last year.
Vet, according to State Department
sources, the U S. continues to commit
more resources to support for the Sal
vadorean junta than to any other single
Latin American country. After a brief halt,
a minor shuffle in the composition of the
junta has allowed U S. military and
economic aid to flow freely again.
Equally disturbing, according to sources
in exile, around 300 U S. technical
advisers are now within El Salvador itself,
including advisers to lower officers sta
tioned with the troops
The parallels with the U S. slide into
Vietnam are unmistakable. As the com
mitment of American resources — be
they weapons, dollars or military ad
visors — grows heavier, the incentive to
send in American troops to protect that
“investment" increases as well. The U S.
has no business directing the course of
the struggle in El Salvador. Do we wish to
see ourselves entangled in another un
popular, drawn-out, divisive military ad
venture on the order of Vietnam? If not,
we need to tell the new Congress and
administration about it now, for they are
certainly steering us in that direction.
Christina Cowger
Senior, History
Flag desecrated
After reading David Wellsfry's letter
(“Flag or mat?”) Friday, several thoughts
occured to me. Seemingly, many people
were “outraged and humiliated" by Ron
Page 4
Phillips’ “desecration” of the flag. It is
unfortuante that some of these people
are not at least comparably outraged and
humiliated by what I view as government
and corporate desecration of our flag.
Direct or indirect U S. oppression and
exploitation of foreign peoples abroad,
past and present, represents a far more
serious desecration of our flag. The
symbolic gesture of Ron Phillips is insig
nificant in comparison.
Similarly, our flag has symbolic mean
ing; it represents freedom, sacrifice, and
hope. Sadly, the product of the selfish,
dangerous, ends-justify-the-means atti
tudes of many of our leaders violates this
meaning. David Wellsfry is correct in
stating that “our flag_symbolizes far
more than just one soiled page in our
national history.” I might add that there
are MANY soiled pages in our national
history. These pages have added to our
perception of hopelessness in the world.
While the Cuban and Vietnamese
refugees, and 52 former hostages, have
found reason to hope, many more people
have not. Our hopes and fears are of
equal importance. Contrary to David
Wellsfry's belief, tne opinions of these
refugees and former hostages are not
more meaningful “than that of one em
bittered man.” It is important to under
stand the intentions of Ron Phillips. Ap
parently he believes the American flag, in
its current condition, would make a fit
ting doormat. While I do not approve of
his method, I understand his intent and
share his bitterness.
As hopeless as we may feel, and as
tainted and torn as our symbolic flag is,
it certainly is not beyond repair. How
ever, we must first recognize it’s dis
repair. To Ron Phillips this may have
required using the flag as a doormat to
get the message across. Apparently, he
didn’t succeed.
Scott E. Weber
Sophomore, Political Science
letters policy
The Emerald will accept and
try to print all letters containing
fair comment on ideas and
topics of interest to the Univer
sity community. Letters must be
typewritten and no longer than
250 words.
Letters must be signed, the
author’s field of study or faculty
status noted and must include
address and phone number
for verification.
Monday. February 2.1981