Editorial
Overriding the veto
won't make for 'pork'
The Senate did not cripple the Reagan presidency last
Thursday by overriding his highway bill veto. He has done a
good enough job at that by himself with tin; Iran-Contra af
fair. However, tin* drama that went on before the legislative
rebuke and the political implications of this congressional
snub deserve some comment. Furthermore, the hill had too
many merits for it to be vetoed.
This was the eighth time a Reagan veto has been over
turned. Although this fact is not remarkable in and of itself
— the president successfully has vetoed fit bills during his
six-year tenure — the timing of it is. This override follows
closely on the heels of the Water Quality Act of 1987, an act
the president vetoed, but was passed nonetheless in late
January.
What can be interpreted from these overrides is the col
lective resolve demonstrated by Senate Democrats, who
have held a slight majority since November. During the
Reagan years, overrides of presidential vetoes have been few
and far between. The charismatic leader has had an im
pressive success rate lobbying Congress. Reagan has manag
ed to clear funding for many political hot potatoes such as
his Star Wars project, further outlays for a burgeoning
defense budget and aid for the Nicaraguan Contras.
As some federal lawmakers have pointed out, this latest
override probably would not have occurred a year ago. What
we may be witnessing is a congressional shift in priorities —
a shifting away from increased defense spending and a
movement toward social and domestic appropriations.
More specifically, Reagan’s fight to veto the highway
hill illustrated his effort to move away from the lingering ef
fects of the Iran-Contra scandal and the whispered talk of
him being a lame duck. The president conferred privately
with 13 dissenting Republican senators in a move to per
suade them to vote for his veto. He failed to sway a single
one. And in an act that can only be defined as desperate, he
told the lawmakers. “I beg you for this vote.”
The veto was denied by a vote of 67 to 33. precisely the
two-thirds majority needed for the override.
Moreover, the president’s decision to fight the highway
bill was politically imprudent. The bill passed the House by
a vote of 407 to 17 and the Senate by a vote of 79 to 17. The
odds were stacked more against Reagan this time than in the
previous legislative battle over the Water Quality Act.
The reason for this bill’s popularity lies with the
economic benefits states will reap. Hundreds of thousands
of jobs will be created by this law. Rapid and mass transit
systems will be constructed. Roads, bridges and tunnels will
be fixed. In addition to all this, 65 mph zones will be
designated on rural portions of our nation’s highways, or
about 75 percent of the entire system.
I-ane County is to receive roughly $8 million for road
improvements thanks to the veto override, and nearly $2
million will be allotted for improving the Kerry Street
Bridge. Reagan used this as an example of what he called
pork barrel legislation.
But pork is all in the eye of the beholder. Looking at his
Star Wars project, his unabashed zeal for defense spending,
and his equally zealous support of the Contras, we see pork.
The jobs and the domestic improvements the highway law
will bring are simply good legislation. To label this law as
too much pork is so much bull.
9BT
b “,n Stmmt *
mmr
Letters
Wider concept
That abortion is a legal pro
cedure in the United States is
only symptomatic of a larger
problem. 1 am troubled by what
I perceive to be a shift in ethical
standards from a "sanctity of
life" to a "quality of life"
position.
Science has come to a consen
sus. Irrefutably, human life
begins at conception. Most
religious doctrines concur.
Nevertheless, the abortion
debate lingers in the
sociological arena.
We continue to terminate the
lives of innocents based upon
what we consider cost/benefit
factors, meaningfulness, conve
nience: the so-called "quality of
life." In the face of hard
science, we've bought the hard
sell.
We are playing with fire
when we embrace this new
ethical conduct. While abortion
was considered an unthinkable
only several decades ago, it is
now commonplace.
Which unthinkabies will we
espouse in the decades to come?
In order to preserve our right to
life as we have known it in
America, we must readopt our
traditional ethical standard
which would deny that there is
a thing as a life not worthy to be
lived.
Robbin Stewart
Springfield
Oregon Daily
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 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
Associate Editors
Community
Politics
Higher Education / Administration
University AMairs
Student Government
Student Activities
General Assignment
General Assignment
Michelle Brence
Lucinda Dillon
Michael Rivers
Stephen Maher
Stanley Nelson
Michael Drummond
Angie Muniz
Dennis Fernandes
Maria Corvallis
John Giustina
Lorraine Rath
B J Thomsen
Janet Paulson
B J Thomsen
Chris Norred
Laurie Schwartz
Carolyn Lamberson
Sarah Kitchen
Alicia Gano
Scott Maben
Reporters: Jackie Barry, Mary Courtis, Gary Henley
Photographers: Sherlyn Bjorkgren, Shu Shing Chen, Der
rel Hewitt, Tim Jones, Bobbie Lo, Dan Wheeler
Production: Michele Ross / Ad Coordinator
Kelly Alexandre, Ronwm Nicole Ashton, Virginia Bamaga,
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, Michael Wilhelm, Serena Williams, X Kang Xie
Poor taste
Dan Goulet’s letter (April 1)
was without doubt one of the
most tasteless and moronic
things ever to appear in the
Emerald.
Mis letters are usually
pseudo - i n tel lectua 1 u It ra
conservative ravings, but nor
mally they serve some small
purpose — even if only to show
that everyone is allowed to
publicly express their political
and social opinions.
In his last letter, Dan wasn’t
expressing political views, nor
was he making social commen
tary. Me used the letters page as
a medium for expressing his
sick sense of "humor” and his
prejudice toward homosexuals.
This prejudice is evidenced
in his stereotype of homosex
uals as careless and pro
miscuous. I’m not sure why
Goulet views homosexuals in
this manner, maybe it is some
sort of psychological projec
tion... At any rate, his
narrow-minded and
unhumorous attack on
homosexuals has no place in the
letters section of the ODE.
Max Bell
Philosophy
Idea to adopt
I never met her, but maybe
someday 1 will. I will tell you
with all the emotion I have that I
love her.
She was a Catholic woman in
her early 2l)s, going to school in
California’s Palo Alto-Stanford
area. She was (is. . .1 hope) an
artist and a music lover, young
and in love with life.
She found a boyfriend. She
became pregnant. And 1 was
born on June 7, 1963. My
biological mother lovingly gave
me up for adoption.
Now I’m 23, I’m here. I'm
alive, I laugh, cry, hope and
love. I have friends, family and
loved ones, and I have a future.
Most important of all. I was
given the chance to live. My
life, my personhood, is just as
human now as it was when 1
was only 23 weeks old inside
the womb.
Could it be that, except when
the mother’s life is in danger,
adoption is the most compas
sionate alternative to an unplan
ned pregnancy?
My brother and sister and I
believe so. All three of us were
adopted. Think about it.
David P. Bartlett
Springfield
Mental state
“Yoo-hoo,” is nothing sacred
anymore? Is the level of
gullibility within people so
high that we have people who
pay money to learn “channel
ing,” a so-called mental state of
“higher awareness” that allows
a person to experience any state
of mind that comes to mind?
After reading in the April 1
Emerald “Channeling provides
many with access to higher
spiritual realm, experts say,” I
thought, at first, the story was
mistakenly put in as an April
Fool’s joke. The fact is, though,
that some people are willing to
believe just about anything.
The feature reminded me of
the ancient alchemists who
believed they could mix metals
to make gold. The study of
alchemy did lead to the science
of chemistry and so contributed
to the betterment of life, but not
without first traveling down
many false roads.
As a person who believes
strongly in the existence of
spiritual output from all living
things, I feel that an egotistical
style of increasing spiritual
awareness of living beings is
self-defeating. Like matter and
ant i-matter, egotism and
spirituality cancel each other
out.
One need not spend money
on books or classes to increase
awareness of one’s spiritual in
ner being. All that is needed is a
realistic attitude about one’s life
and how much of a privilege it
is to have a consciousness that
can experience the sharing of
love and life.
Patrick Clancy
Eugene