editorial
Reagan’s budget is
a big deficit builder
President Ronald Reagan’s nationally televised
Wednesday-night speech was a classic example of political
deception. Reagan made a plea to the American electorate,
asking for its support of his controversial $52 billion deficit
reduction plan. The Reagan budget package calls for drastic
reductions in mass transit aid, revenue sharing, student
financial aid and other social sector programs. The president
charges that through their opposition, opponents of his
“bipartisan” plan have perpetuated record deficit levels.
But the president neglected to tell voters that his 1981 and
1982 tax reform bills in conjunction with his $1 trillion,
four-year defense program have been the major cause of our
massive $1.7 trillion national debt.
Reagan has never presented a balanced budget to Con
gress. He has consistently sent deficit-ridden budget pro
posals to the House and Senate. But through a combination
of masterful political maneuvering, overly optimistic
revenue forecasts and a unique ability to gain public sup
port, Reagan has been able to sell Congress on many of his
most controversial budget proposals. As a master of political
deception, he has been able to convince both Congress and
the public that he is the true advocate of a balanced budget.
But as is the case with any “B” actor, the Reagan act has
worn thin.
Many congressional members recognize the hypocrisy
of a man who claims to be an opponent of big government
but continues to give outlandish increases to the federal
government’s most bloated agency: the defense department.
They see the effects that Reagan’s massive tax reductions
have had on the federal deficit. And they recognize the role
that his huge agriculture subsidy program has played in ex
acerbating the deficit.
Reagan is one of the biggest spenders in the history of
the United States government. He has never demonstrated
the ability to place fiscal restraints on his pet programs.
While he may claim otherwise, Ronald Reagan is the main
cause of our record $200 billion national deficit.
Wet T-shirt contests
degrade all involved
Is a wet T-shirt contest an act that degrades women or
just a form of free expression? Organizers of Thursday’s
demonstration against a wet T-shirt contest at the Heaven’s
Gate Bar and Lounge in Springfield believe they do. They
see it as a degrading act that perpetuates the stereotype of
women as simply providing pleasure for men. But the
manager of the bar describes it as “fun.” He says that
women are voluntarily taking part in the 11-week-old con
test, and that is their right. Who is correct?
Certainly, men and women should have the right to par
ticipate in such contests. They should have control of their
bodies. Nevertheless, the implications of such contests go
much deeper than the issue of personal choice.
Wet T-shirt contests perpetuate the image of the “dumb
blonde” and the attitude that women exist simply for male
pleasure. Men who attend such contests focus on the contes
tant’s breasts rather than any other qualities she may
possess. For many men, the fact that some women voluntari
ly display their bodies perpetuates the myth that women en
joy being exploited as sex objects. While participants in the
Springfield bar’s contest should have the right to par
ticipate, they — and their audiences — must understand the
effects of what they are doing. Their participation degrades
both themselves and those who watch.
emerald
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published Monday
through Friday except during exam week and vacations
by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co., at the
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403.
The Emerald operates independently of the Universi
ty with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial
Union and is a member of the Associated Press.
General Staff
Advertising Director Susan Thelen
Advertising Sales: Laura Buckley, Tim Clevenger, Jen
nifer Fox, Marcia Leonard, Rick Martz, Nancy Nielsen,
Brett Pickman, Tim Swillinger, David Wood.
Production: Kelly Cornyn, Stormi Dykes, Manuel Flores,
Kathy Gallagher, Dean Guernsey, Susan Hawkins, Grant
Keltner, Rob Kraft, Ross Martin, Karin McKercher, Lauri
Neely, Kelly Neff, Kara Oberst, Curt Penrod, Michele
Ross, Alyson Simmons, Peg Solonika, Karen' Stallwood,
Tim Swillinger, Colleen Tremaine, Hank Trotter.
Production Manager
Classified Advertising
Controller
Russell Steele
Vince Adams
Jean Ownbey
Page 2A
Editor
Managing Editor
News Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Photo Editor
Sports Editor
Sidelines Editor
Friday Edition Editor
Entertainment Editor
Night Editor
Associate Editors
Administration
Higher Education
Politics
ASUO
Student Activities
Community
Features
Michele Matassa
Mike Sims
Michael Kulaga
Costas Christ, Dave Berns
Brian Erb
Brent De La Paz
Sheila Landry
Kim Carlson
Michael Duncan
Michele Matassa
Jolayne Houtz
Scott McFetridge
Paul Ertelt
Julie Shippen
Diana Elliott
Cynthia Whitfield
Lori Steinhauer
Reporters: Sean Axmaker, Kirsten Bolin, Michelle Brence,
Dave Carlson, Robert Collias* Thomas Henderson, Robin
Joannides, Allan Lazo, Capi Lynn.
Photographers: Dean Guernsey, Kirk Hirota, Jim Marks,
Ross Martin, Karen Stallwood, Hank Trotter.
News and Editorial 688-5511
Display Advertising and Business 688-3712
Classified Advertising 686-4343
Production 688-4381
Circulation 686-5511
letters
IVs our choice
Since the Emerald considers
itself a newspaper that is both
aware and representative of stu
dent’s views, it should reflect
such views. However, the
Emerald has failed on both
counts, and has insulted the
student body they claim to
represent.
The "account” in question is
a blatantly sexist advertisement
for a "wet T-shirt contest.” The
ad’s boldest type is its biggest
insult by referring to women as
girls.
This "appeal” shows the
underlying attitude of the
“contest” organizers’ implicit
lack of respect for women.
The fact that there is an event
whose focus is to ogle, hoot at
and "judge” women’s breasts is
nothing short of pornography.
There is no defense to argue
in favor of celebrating the objec
tification of women: not
aesthetically, morally, or
economically. If this particular
establishment must stoop to
such debase levels to stay alive,
they deserve to go under.
This is where the Emerald
plays a part.
By promoting this advertise
ment, the Emerald is
perpetuating disrespectful at
titudes towards women. Por
nography is the theory, and
rape is the practice.
If the Emerald shows concern
enough to run a three-part series
on the latter, why does it choose
to turn a blind eye to the
former?
Hov. conscientious is our
campus newspaper,
gatekeepers of "free speech,” to
sexism? About as conscientious
as our university, institution of
“enlightenment,” is to racism.
Both choose to invest student
money towards oppressive
attitudes.
Students at UC-Berkeley
demanded divestment; students
at Stanford refused Playboy.
What will our students and
campus newspaper at Oregon
choose to do?
Raymond Scully
)anis Sellers
Eugene
Act quickly
Tuesday, Congress will have
decided Reagan’s $14 million
request to overthrow the
popularly elected government
of Nicaragua. The funds will
support the “Contras,” led from
Honduras by Col. Bermudas
and Capt. Lopez.
These Contra leaders told The
New York Times that they and
other high Contra officers are
former National Guardsmen.
Somoza’s Guard is notorious
worldwide for its reign of terror,
but Reagan has said these but
chers are the “moral equal of
our founding fathers.”
The administration declared
it's waging an “all-out press on
this (funding) issue.”
Indeed, Reagan has lied about
Nicaragua; falsely alarming that
the USSR was sending MiG jet
fighters (exposed as untrue),
obscurring the contras’ ties to
Somoza, and Saturday claiming
Soviet personnel were fighting
on front lines against the
Contras.
This “all-out press” is in
tended to win support for
Reagan’s war hopes.
Last week, the “Times"
reported that the administration
told Congress that “direct ap
plication of U.S. military
force. . . must realistically be
recognized as an eventual op
tion,” meaning sending you
and me to kill and die to
reinstate the butchering Na
tional Guard in Nicaragua.
It’s time to say — again —
“Hell no, we won’t go!”
A few years ago, Reagan call
ed the Vietnam war a “noble
cause” and “a war which our
government refused to win.”
Now he wants his personal shot
at winning one.
This letter isn't aimed at the
unqestioning worshippers of
every Reagan fantasy — it is a
plea for those already outraged
to act. before the U.S. backed
bloodshed runs thicker and
stickier in Nicaragua.
Douglas Pyle
Mid-Valley Link
A tribute
Not many people remember,
but 10 years ago, April 23, a
flame of talent was extinguish
ed. I'm referring to Pete Ham,
the lead guitarist, singer and
song writer for the rock group
Badfinger.
Pete and his band were one of
the early discoveries of the
Beatles' Apple Company when
Paul McCartney opened up the
company to any budding artist.
Of all the requests that came
pouring in, Badfinger's was one
of the few that was accepted.
And as it turned out, they were
to be the only artists to produce
consistent top ten hits for the
label.
Pete Ham wrote such songs as
“No Matter What,” “Day After
Day,” and "Baby Blue."
However, success did not
come easy for the group. They
found themselves overshadow
ed by the Beatles and even
labeled as the Beatles "B
band.”
One of their albums, “No
Dice," has been called "the best
album the Beatles never made”
by Rolling Stone in reference to
the similar style Badfinger
used.
In an attempt to lose this
label, Badfiner left Apple in
1973 to join with Warner Bros.
Their albums, while full of
superlative rock songs failed
miserably.
In 1975 the group found itself
in debt following some crooked
dealings by their manager. Pete
Ham became disgusted with the
music business and hanged
himself.
Any of you who remember
Badfinger and Pete’s songs
know what a lose his death
meant. I feel that neither he nor
his music got recognition he
deserved. I’ve attempted to
remedy this situation, however
slightly with this letter.
Donald Nichols
History
‘ A AAil nc mon