Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 3, 1981)
opinion_ ‘A literal misuse of power’ is right They’re humming a different tune downtown. In a Sunday editorial, Eugene’s other daily paper bemoaned the “Alumax clause” of the Northwest Power Bill, which guarantees Bon neville Power Administration will supply Alumax, Inc. with 320 megawatts of power if it ever makes good on plans to build an aluminim manufacturing plant in Umatilla County. Alumax has a contract with BPA insuring the power through 1986, but the power bill clause, which the Register-Guard says should have been stricken from the bill, requires Bonneville to con tinue supplying Alumax’s energy requirements after the contract expiration date. “Those 320 megawatts should have been put to other uses in which 10 times, perhaps more than 20 times, as many new jobs would be creat ed,” the editorial laments. Meanwhile, it continues, the Northwest may face power generation deficits of 2,000 to 4,000 megawatts by 1985. Apparently enough energy remains in Oregon to shed some light on 10th Avenue and High Street, however. Unfortunately, the enlightened Register Guard stand comes after months of supporting the power bill. The paper says other Oregon con gressmen should have joined 4th District Rep. Jim Weaver in opposing inclusion of Alumax in the bill. In November, the paper said sorry, Jim, we can’t back you up this time. This Alumax scam is only one of several serious flaws in the power bill that Weaver so plainly and consistently warned us about. The Register-Guard knew the bill’s flaws as well as anybody, but it chose to support its passage. That discrepency should be remembered when reading the Guard’s new opinions, especially when they try to pass off this aluminum power grab as a big surprise. "That Alumax may end up with a dispropor tionate share of the Northwest’s lean energy supplies is therefore not merely paradoxical," the Sunday editorial says. “It’s economically, and morally, indefensible. It shouldn’t be possible.” The Register-Guard’s swing of opinion, too, is more than paradoxical. However, as they say downtown, "licking at spilt milk won’t block Alumax." New art I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the newest work of art here on campus. It's located on the north end of the Mu seum of Art. I just wish the artist would make him-herseif known so I could thank her-him personally. And ask him-her what the hell EQUIPE-X means. I'd also like to express my appreciation to whomever called in the bomb-scare that caused 150 Geology to be vacated at 8:20 last Thursday morning. I hadn’t studied for that Chemistry mid-term either. Rod Schaffer Sophomore, psychology More on ‘Daniel’ Affirmation is due Prof. Sanders’ points, in his letter of Jan. 29, against religious malice, public allegations of nastiness, and editorial partiality. Students of the Bible should avail them selves of leading scholars in their field, either in person or in print. The genius of the university system is that there is no "dogma’’ or “heresy” — all viewpoints can receive an equal hearing. In the interest of continuing such dialogue regarding the difficult question of the dating of the Book of Daniel, three brief points should be made for the ben efit of your readers. First, the question of the dating of the book is anything but a closed one Some scholars argue for a second century B.C. origin. Second, the late date so attributed depends heavily I upon a quasi-Hegelian theory of the evolution of the religion and cultus of ancient Israel, which theory we have receive from the 19th century Tubingen school. Third, among contemporary scholars there is a growing contention for a sixth century B.C. date for the Book of Daniel, aided and abetted by the ac cumulating Near Eastern archaelogical and literary discoveries of this century. For arguments pro and con, and biblio graphies, see: Daniel, J.G. Baldwin, University of Bristol, Inter-Varsity Press; Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, D.J. Wiseman, University of Lon don, Tyndale Press; The Stones and the Scriptures, E.M. Yamauchi, Miami (Ohio) University, Holman Press; The Bible in its World, K A Kitchen, University of Liver pool, Inter-Varsity Press. T.H. Cook Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship Staff Not forgotten Vietnam veterans are bitter about the “heroic" welcome the former hostages have received. Where were the ticker tape parades and handshakes with the president when the vets returned home? The veterans were not forgotten by the American people when they returned home in 1974. In fact the public at large was responsible for their homecoming. The massive protests of the '70s were against the crime of war, and the men in uniform were the victims. The public showed its care for human life by pres suring the government to end the war. It was the care of the American people that brought the soldiers home. They were victims, not heroes, and the public saw them as such. Today 52 people were victims of inter national politics. Whether due to a public sense of guilt, capitalization by the media, or some other reasoning, they were called heroes. What effect this misplaced emotion will have on the former hostages remains to be seen. I suspect it will do more harm than good. The plight of our Vietnam veterans, relative to the former hostages, was not forgotten by the public, but perhaps better understood. Chris Gilmore Junior, business Yet another side In his letter titled “Another side,” Clark Porter claims that “the most pressing problem in the world today is over population.” While it is true that over population is a serious problem in many Third World countries, here in the U.S. the opposite is true. Except for the "baby boom” just after World War tl, the birth rate in the U.S. has been declining steadily since the 17th century. In 1957 for example, the number of children born per woman was 3.76; this figure had been cut to 1.75 by 1976. This is less than the replacement level. I fail to see the relationship between abortion on demand in the U.S. and -1 ©i<Wf swe. If I HANDED OrtR THE TCREI6N AID MONEY, WD STOP TERRORIZING ME ... AND IF I DIDN'T, WD BURN DOWN MY EMBASSY' e 4 overpopulation in India. Certainly the argument sounds good. We’ve all heard it before: "One less mouth to feed in a world where 500 million go to bed hungry every night." The hunger problem is not so simple. It is basically a problem of unequal distribution of both population and resources. One less mouth to feed in America does not mean one less hungry person in India; it means cheaper food prices, more waste and more farmland converted to other uses. Mr. Porter in sinuates that the 1.2 million would-be mothers chose to abort their children in order to adopt a Cambodian refugee instead No, they aborted them because they were just “unwanted.” And if they won’t sacrifice for their own children, they certainly won’t sacrifice for some child starving in a distant foreign land. This is the sad thing. Abortion is only a symptom. The real issue is selfishness. Nick Wilson Senior, landscape architecture Boob review After reading the review of George Bernard Shaw’s play "Misalliance” in the Emerald (Jan. 22) I checked my eyes carefully for cataracts, sties, fly-specks or other hindrances to vision. But no, there the review was in all its gorgeous confusion! For your reviewer to call Shaw’s brilliant dialogue "weak and wandering,” and his script “bland" only shows that this unfortunate creature has obviously never heard a decent conver sation in his whole life. The clever and at the same time quite profound lines of this play are its main point, as in any of Shaw's plays. And to follow this obvious gaffe with TWELVE paragraphs of a weak, wandering and bland summary of the plot was as silly as the preceding opinion was misinformed. Your reviewer would be better set to criticize old Walt Disney cartoons as more appropriate to his talents. He writes like a boob who has been suckled on the boob of a boob-tube! Edmund Soule Professor emeritus, library 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. Tuesday. February 3.1981
