opinion_
Partisan votes defeat
nuclear freeze plan
The nuclear freeze movement experienced another major
setback Monday when the U.S. Senate defeated the mutual and
verifiable nuclear freeze proposal.
The proposal was offered by Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.,
and Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., in the best tradition of bi-partisanism.
They attached the nuclear freeze resolution as an amendment to
a bill raising the national debt ceiling. In the worst tradition of
partisan voting, the Republican-led Senate voted mostly on party
lines and rejected the nuclear freeze resolution.
Kennedy and Hatfield seemed resolved to play the waiting
game and wait for another opportunity to attach the nuclear
freeze resolution onto another bill.
The senators issued a joint statement to this effect.
"We will bring up our resolution again and again until the
Senate catches up with the House and the American people in
their overwhelming support for this essential step to halt and
reverse the nuclear arms race," the statement read.
The Kennedy/Hatfield nuclear freeze — basically the same
resolution the House passed in May — calls on the Soviet Union
and the United States to negotiate an immediate, mutual and
verifiable freeze on all production, development and deploy
ment of nuclear weapons, and then to begin reducing the
arsenals.
The most recent surveys indicate nearly three-fourths of
Americans polled are in favor of some type of a nuclear freeze.
This makes for interesting irony with the Kennedy/Hatfield state
ment and shows the partisan and dilatory nature of the
Republican-led Senate.
It appears the chauvinistic paranoiacs have won again. Pres.
Ronald Reagan has zealously maintained the United States must
increase its arsenal of nuclear weapons to pressure the Soviet
Union into some sort of disarmament agreement. That's rather
like building weapons to fight a war so that no war will be
fought. Reagan also contends — tacitly — that a limited nuclear
war can be won.
Reagan is more suicidal than savior, as are his henchmen
who defeated the nuclear freeze resolution. Sen. Jake Gam, R
Utah, said the resolution would give the Soviets a great advan
tage. And like a good conservative, Gam noted the Soviets have
surpassed the U.S. in nuclear arms.
It's really unfortunate the Kennedy/Hatfield nuclear freeze
was defeated. The American people favored it, but it appears a
handful of partisans are turning a deaf ear to the will of the peo
ple. How much longer will we have to wait until a sane move is
made to end the nuclear arms madness?
Defense vs. press;
censorship wins
The Defense department's restrictions on journalists during
the initial stages of the invasion of Grenada smacks of press
censorship.
The American Society of Newspaper Editors have lodged a
letter of protest with the Defense department objecting to the
failure to honor the "on-the-scene coverage of American military
operations.”
U.S. military authorities barred reporters from Grenada for
two days following the invasion. It's lead to bitter feelings in the
press and possibly the resignation of a White House press
officer.
Leslie Janka, a White House press officer specializing in
foreign policy, resigned Monday because of the administration's
handling of information about the Grenada invasion.
In its letter of protest ASNE recalled the tradition of press
coverage of the military dating from World War II. We think of
Edward Morrow broadcasting from a rooftop in London while
German bombers devastated the city — or Ernie Pyle with the
U.S. Army in Italy — or Richard Tregaskis with the U.S. Marines
on Guadalcanal. Who can forget CBS' Ed Bradley in Vietnam, on
camera, wounded, reporting with the U.S. Army?
A free press is essential to a free society — the Reagan ad
ministration ought to remember that as it claims to restore
democracy to politically oppressed islands.
Oregon daily a _a
emeraid
The Oregon Daily l met aid is published Monday through ft*
day except during exam wee* and vacation*, by the Oregon Daily
(metaid Publishing Co , at the University of Oregon, tugene. OK.
*7403
The f met aid operates independently of the University with
offices on the third Moor of the Irb Memorial Union and is a
member of the Assoc iated Press
XI-- (fillMLaJ
Display Achrrtmog and leem
f Lasssafed Aihritxins
Car id at tee
M*»I1
*•*■1711
*0*4341
*0*4301
*0*-fftt
Fage 2, Section A
( diioi
Managing Iditor
Nrwi f rlilor
Aiuiunl Nfwi Idiloi
Editorial Page Idrtoi
Photo Iditor
Sport* Iditor
Sideline* fdilor
I ntertawment Idiloi
A**i*lant tntenainmenl tdilor
Night f ditoi
A MOT late Muon
Higher I dotation
Department* and School*
Student Government
feature*
Public t
Community
General Staff
Advert l*mg Manager
< laccrlied Advert rung
Production Manager
font roder
Debbie Hewlett
Sandy |ohn*tone
frank Shaw
Brenda Thornton
Cod fernatd
Dave Kao
Doug levy
(ohn Meaty
Angela Allen Morgan
Kim Carhon
Brook* Dared
Doug Na*h
Meli**a Martin
lim Moore
loan Herman
Brook* Dared
Mvhele Maiasvi
Darlene Gore
Salty Ot|ar
Victoria Koch
lean Ownbey
Working for our best interests
I have had a few occasions to do something I find
personally distasteful, however important that action
might be to a greater end. The decision is never easy,
and it is always controversial.
Such was the case when I made a motion to
remove Dane Claussen from the Oregon Daily
Emerald's Board of Directors. Claussen, a former
Emerald associate editor, and I have worked
together, got drunk together, and debated jour
nalism together. I would consider him a friend. I
think he considers me to be a friend.
editor's note
debbie howlett
The point of all of this is that while I voted to
remove Claussen from the Emerald's Board of Direc
tors last week, my motivation was not personal. My
motivation was in looking out for the best interests of
the Emerald, as I hope was every other board
members' motivation.
I voted to remove Claussen because I believe he
was not acting in the Emerald's best interest.
The board, strictly adhering to its own bylaws,
removed Claussen by a 7-1 vote. Claussen, who says
he was confused by the motion, voted in favor of
removing himself. Richard Burr, an ASUO appointed
representative, was retained as a member of the
board by a 5-2 vote.
What has happened in the past few weeks has
made me wonder wny c.iaussen, or nurr iui mm mm
ter, would care to sit on the Emerald board anyway.
Claussen is publisher and Burr is editor of a new
bi-weekly publication called the Oregon Commen
tator. Claussen, no less than viciously, attacked the
Emerald and its staff (as well as other campus
publications) in his first issue.
Statements such as "Commentator articles will
tell you what other campus publications are unable
to tell you because of the inexperience, in
competence, or narrow-mindedness of their staffs,"
lend credence to the argument that Claussen is not
acting in the Emerald's best interest. And Claussen
says that had the board kept him on he would have
resigned anyway.
I'm pu/zled by it ail because I have yet to hear
Claussen say that he is concerned about the well
being of the Emerald. I have only heard that he, as an
elected official, was wronged. That seems to be a per
sonal motivation.
It isn't the board's intent to dismiss the students
voice in its body. It isn't the board's intent to say that
Claussen has any conflicts, either in his interests or
in his ethics.
I write this column not as an apologist for the
board's action, but as a member of the board explain
ing her actions to the students the Emerald serves
and to provide insight into the decision.
I think I speak tor the entire board when I say the
decision was neither easily, nor lightly, reached. But I
am still convinced the decision was in the best in
terests of the Emerald, and its readership.
letters
That time again
In a recent letter to our local
media published Oct. 15, Ms.
Prebehalla expressed her sincere
concern for the lack of police pro
tection afforded her and other
persons residing in the McKenzie
Valley area. Prebehalla specifically
referred to the reassignment of a
deputy sheriff formally assigned
to the Blue River District.
Emphasizing her concerns,
Prebehalla stated, . so a plea is
hereby made to the person or per
sons who can help. Please give us
back our deputy. He is desperate
ly needed... a sheriff’s deputy is
like a security blanket needed by
young and old alike."
Many letters expressing similar
concerns have been published,
but I was particulary moved by the
desperate tone of Prebehalla's
writing, because you see,
Prebehalla, there is someone who
can help, but refuses to do so. The
same person who has denied you
and your neighbors a vital public
service has been less than candid
in response to your pleas,
Sheriff Dave Burks will have you
believe that fiscal constraints have
prohibited him from restoring
police protection to the areas of
Blue River, Oakridge, and
Florence.
Not so, Prebehalla. Let me
assure you that the present duties
of the officer formally assigned to
the Blue River District, and the of
ficer currently assigned to the
Florence sub-station, do not im
pede their ability to respond to
emergency or life threatening
situations. However, because of
directives used by Sheriff Burks,
these deputies are restricted from
performing the basic function of
their office — the protection of life
and property.
It's a pathetic situation that you
and other citizens are being undu
ly penalized for the defeat of a law
enforcement levy. It's dishearten
ing to me, Prebehalla, because I
am aware of these facts, but
powerless to act in your behalf.
Ron Ciasullo
candidate for lane county sheriff
Then quit
If Pres. Ronald Reagan is as
bothered as he claims to be about
having the worst job in the world,
having to make telephone calls
consoling grieving parents of
dead Marines, he would not put
himself in a position where he
would have this job.
If he was as much of a
humanitarian as he portrays, and
would like the public to believe he
is, he would withdraw the Marines
from Lebanon so that no more
Marines would be killed there.
With no more Marines getting kill
ed in Lebanon, Reagan would no
longer have the worst job in the
world, which bothers him so
much.
Adam Schlutz
history
Wednesday, November 2, 1W3