Editorial
President's speech
was not reassuring
Although a fine piece of rhetoric. President Reagan’s
nationally televised speech last night was nothing more than
superficial pap. The president did a lot of talking in his
13-minute address, but said little.
Questions still linger about where the money allegedly
diverted to the Contras went, who exactly was involved and
to what extent, and whether he still is willing to deal with
so-called moderate elements in Iran.
If anything, the president raised even more questions
about his shaky administraion. He often noted certain
members of his administration, or “ freelancers,” surrep
titiously took matters into their own hands in the Iran
Contra affair, but that he was ultimately responsible. He
then offered a naval analogy that improprieties “happened
on my watch.” The president is chief of command, not
merely a watchman. He should have known what was going
on — so why didn’t he?
He explained he did not address the nation concerning
the Iran-Contra affair for the past three months because he
was waiting for the Tower report to come out. He did not
want to offer any “sketchy reports or possibly erroneous
statements, which would then have to be corrected.” He
needed the report to tell him what went on, which is sad
enough, but this also implies that what he did say in his
speech was more like a forced confession.
He reminded the nation that he had previously said he
didn’t trade arms for hostages. The president stated he still
believes this to be true, even though "the facts of the
evidence tell me it is not.” So which is it?
Moreover, he believed the arms shipments offered a
stategic opening to the Iranian government. This calls into
question his policy on terrorism. The administration has
fingered Syria, Lybia and Iran as terrorist nations. But it’s in
teresting to note that while the United States was bombing
Tripoli in April of 1986, it was simultaneously selling
weapons to Tehran.
Reagan never admitted that he made mistakes, he mere
ly said that “mistakes were made” in implementing the
policy of arms to Iran. Does this mean the president still
would consider shipping arms to that government?
The president called on Vice President George Bush to
review the administration’s terrorist policy. The irony here
is that the policy is fine — simply, don’t deal with terrorists
— if only the administration would stick to it.
He also addressed the issue of not remembering whether
he authorized the first shipments of arms to Iran. He cited
“no one kept proper records of meetings or decisions,”
which led to his failure to recollect prior approval. This is
nothing less than bizarre. As ABC White House correspon
dent Sam Donaldson noted after the speech, it isn’t a matter
of which day the shipments were sent, but whether he
authorized them in advance. If he didn’t authorize the first
shipments, why didn't he? If he did, then why didn’t he
keep closer tabs on this policy?
In short, his speech was not very comforting nor convin
cing. and everything he said could and should have been
said last fall. Furthermore, there are no indications he can or
will change his "hands-off” management style — leaving
many to wonder if safeguards exist to protect the nation from
this happening again.
Oregon Daily
Emerald
The Oreoon Dally Emerald Is published Monday
through Friday except during exam week and vacations
by the Oreaon Daily Emerald Publishing Co . at the
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. 97403
The Emerald operates Independently of the University
with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial Union
and Is a member of the Associated Press
The Emerald is private property The unlawful removal
or use of papers is prosecutable by law
General Staff
Advertising Director Susan Thelen
Production Manager Wayne Michael Lottinville
Classified Advertising Alyson Simmons
Assistant to the Publisher Jean Ownbey
Advertising Sales: Peter LaFleur / Sales Manager
Teresa Acosta, Beryl Israel, Janelle Heitmann, Laura
Goldstein, Catherine Lilja, Rick Martz, Joseph Menzel,
Peter Miller, Joan Wildermuth
News and Editorial 686-5511
Display Advertising and Business 686 3712
Classified Advertising 686-4343
Letter Perfect Graphics 686 5511
Production 686 4381
Circulation 686 5511
Editor
Managing Editor
News Editor
Spectrum Editor
Spectrum Assistant Editor
Editorial Page Editors
Sports Editor
Photo Editor
Spectrum Photo Editor
Graphics Editor
Night Editor
Michelle Brence
Lucinda Dillon
Michael Rivers
Stephen Maher
Stanley Nelson
Michael Drummond
Angie Muniz
Capi Lynn
Michael Wilhelm
John Giustlna
Lorraine Rath
Lucinda Dillon
Associate Editors
Community
Politics
Higher Education / Administration
University Affairs
Student Government
Student Activities
General Assignment
General Assignment
General Assignment
Jolayne Houtz
Nick Reed
Chris Norred
B J Thomsen
Carolyn Lamberson
Sarah Kitchen
Karen Creighton
Dennis Fernandes
Scott Maben
Reporters: Sean Axmaker, Mary Courtis, Gary Henley,
Janet Paulson
Photographers: Sherlyn Bjorkgren, Shu-Shing Chen
Maria Corvallis, Derrel Hewitt, Bobbie Lo, Dan Wheeler
Production: Michele Ross / Ad Coordinator
Kelly Alexandre. Ronwin Nicole Ashton, Virginia Baniaga.
Samantha Barbitta, Sandra Bevans. Sara Briscoe. Shu
Shing Chen, Janet Emery, Judith Gatz, Lisa Haggerty,
Donna Leslie, Curtis Lott. Steve Lundgren, Kelli Mason!
Mike McGraw, Rob Miles, Angela Muniz. Julie Paul, Ingrid
White, Serena Williams, X Kang Xie
NATIONAL
DEBT
& umsy sae*ce
*1N £PrfE Of INTERMITTENT ATTEMPTS TO CHOP if DOWN, if WILL UNDOUBTEDLY GROW FOREVER"
Letters
Take your pick
The Brian Frary/Charlie
Richards crusade to “prove”
that there are no “fallacies” in
“the” Bible is as ridiculous as
someone trying to “prove” that
the entirety of English is con
tained in “the” dictionary.
Which Bible? The New
American? The New English?
The Anchor Bible? The
Jerusalem Bible? The New
Catholic Edition? The Authoriz
ed King James Version? Perhaps
their own edition?
All of these Bibles differ from
each other in details ranging
from slight to profound. ALL
versions come to us via
NUMEROUS translators and
editors, all of whom have —
deliberately or accidentally —
provided their own interpreta
tion of various parts.
Since the 1977 publication of
the New Testament texts
discovered in 1945 at Nag Ham
madi, Egypt, it has become ever
more apparent that vast
segments of most modern Bibles
were selected for inclusion on
the basis of political expediency
rather than divine inspiration.
Thus we have the Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, but not (until 1977) those
of Thomas, Philip, or Mary; we
have had the Apocalypse of
John, but not the Apocalypse of
Peter, etc., etc.
In short, there is no “Bible”;
there are many different bibles.
Before offering to “prove” a
particular version infallible,
these gentlemen need to pro
vide some compelling reasons
as to why we should be looking
at their particular version, and
not someone else’s.
Hiawatha
Music graduate
By the people
This letter is for people who
watched “Amerika" to see what
it was about. Those who, rather
than judging for themselves,
decided to let the establishment
media provide them with a pre
digested “respectable” point of
view might as well stop
reading.
As you probably noticed, this
movie was not particularly
“anti-Russian.” The main Rus
sian charcters were portrayed
almost sympathetically, as peo
ple trying to do their job in a
way that would cause the least
harm, as they saw it. The main
military bad guy wasn't even
Russian. Maybe the movie
wasn’t about Russians at all.
This was primarily a movie
about Americans, and their
reaction to loss of freedom. One
message that came across clear
ly is that a military occupation,
even under relatively benign
Letters Policy
The Emerald will attempt to
print all letters containing fair
comment on topics of interest to
the University community.
Letters to the editor must be
limited to 250 words, typed,
signed and the identification of
the writer must be verified when
the letter is turned in. The
Emerald reserves the right to edit
any letter for length or style. Let
ters to the editor should be turn
ed into the Emerald office. Suite
300. EMU.
leadership, would mean misery
for millions, and that in such a
situation the cost of resistance
would be so high that most
Americans would, in one way
or another, give up.
The most disturbing thing
about the behavior of these fic
tional Americans is its similari
ty to that of real Americans to
day. Even with no tanks and
helicopter gunships threatening
them, Americans are losing
their freedom at an alarming
rate. Although the "cost of
resistance" would simply be
taking responsibility for their
own lives, most Americans are
giving up without a fight.
If Americans don’t get serious
soon about preserving liberty
here at home, Amerika will be
reality within a generation.
Nobody will have to invade. We
are quite capable of bringing it
upon ourselves.
Joseph W. Dehn HI
Eugene
Observations
Just a few observations on the
modern social scene:
1. KOZY Dateline is replacing
Guido’s as the place to meet
babes.
2. Athletes with a “nervous
piss" are more nervous when
monitored on drug-test day.
3. Homosexuals that finally
“came out of the closet” are
now back with the hangers and
the vacuum cleaner.
4. Casual sex fans find sex
considerably less casual in rub
ber gloves and condoms.
5. Oral sex fans that swallow
ed before don’t swallow any
more.
6. Anal sex fans are a dying
breed.
7. Scowling fundamentalists
have cramps in their faces from
smiling so much.
8. Liberals like myself are
becoming a bit more pragmatic.
Blake Hastings
Sociology