_Editorial—
Wright tried, but
he was no Rayburn
For (i while, we were frightened. It looked as
though he'd fillibuster until, .it least. President Hush
lelt office He even compared himself to former House
Speaker Sam Rayburn but that went over .is well as
I Jan Quay le's comparison to Ja< k Kennedy
He took a long time getting to the point, but House
Speaker Jim Wright announced Wednesday he is sur
rendering his leadership post and has offered to resign
his congressional seat after a year of controversy over
alleged ethics violations.
On May 20. 1088. a formal complaint was filed
v\itli the 1 louse Ethics (’ommitlee asking for .in investi
gation to determine whether Wright violated House
ethics rules On May 24 ot this year. Wright's lawyers
broached the possibility of Wright resigning Ins leader
ship post in exchange for dismissal ol some of the eth
ic s charges against him.
So now Wright who has "ached" to tell his side ot
the sordid store for a year, spent an hour Wednesday
answering the three basic questions the ethic s < ominit
tee had raised against him. These questions dealt with
the employment ol his wife Heltv (and alleged "gifts"
she had lei eived while employed), the monetary influ
em e ol his friend and business partner George Mallick
and Wright s evasion of outside income limits through
bulk sales of his book "Kellis lions ol a Public Man."
Wright contended the ethics committee did not of
fer evidenc e that his wife did not earn the approxi
mately $18,000 she made while employed over a four
yeai period although the committee accused her of
not working, and inadvertently accused them both of
being involved in subterfuge by accepting gifts from
Ahl I I M .K
Wright also faced the committee s charges that
Mallick had direct influence in establishing legislation
and in making Wright vote in Mallick's favor on legis
lation. Hut apparently, the committee claimed Mallick
didn't have direct interests in Wright's proceedings,
and neither were any of his actions in violation of the
direct interest rules
Finally, in terms of his book. Wright said he did
not "scam to exceed and violate the outside income
limits rules." lie was just sorry his staff was so eager to
sell his books.
Hut Wright wasn't finished lie called for both par
ties in Congress to "resolve to bring this period of
mindless cannibalism to an end." No doubt relieved
that Wright's emotional defense was over, his col
leagues gave him a standing ovation. Or maybe they're
as relieved as other Americ ans that the' ethics scandal
is over, and House Majority header Thomas Foley. 13
Wash., likely will take his plac e and complete the shift
to a new generation of leaders in Congress.
4 \
D O
ETHICS
_ COMM. .
0 o
OKAY
OKAY.,
I MIGHT
CONSIDER
LEAVING
NOW..
| mJ I I 1 ' fys I'yrarri iSRi"iv'»
Bush scores his first victory at summit
Hoy. you think you got a guy pugged,
.ind he goes off and does something that
really surprises you.
After four months of a do-nothing presi
dency and a record of diplomatic waffling,
(ieorge Bush did indeed go off and. seem
ingly from out of nowhere, (lull off a surpris
ing foreign policy achievement last week at
the 4()th-anniversary summit meeting of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
You've got to give tilt* guy some credit;
the NATO summit was a tough challenge.
Bush managed to walk a thin line between
hawkish Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
of Kngland and Chancellor Helmut kohl of
West Oermany, who passes as Western Eu
rope's version of a peace maverick.
In forging for NATO a (wild yet tenuous
conventional arms control agreement with
the Soviet Union, Bush brought back an
achievement where none was expected.
Partly, Bush was under the gun, needing an
initiative to counter Soviet President Mik
hail (iorbachev's recent popular proposals.
Bush's proposal calls for-a 20 percent
cut in European combat troops and a 15 per
cent reduction in aircraft, with a completion
schedule of six to 12 months. While a call
for "partial reduction" in short-range nucle
ar missiles (the major source of contention
between Kohl and Thatcher) was made, real
plans on the missile issue have been delayed
until progress is made in talks taking place
in Vienna, Austria. Coming from a man who
shuffled his feet in diplomatic situations in
China and Panama and billed himself as
"tough on defense" during the election, the
conventional arms proposal is quite the bold
initiative.
While Bush managed to put together a
difficult consensus between the l(i NATO
members, there are still some things to be
worked out. The language of the missile
compromise was left intentionally vague,
and Thatcher and kohl have already started
taking potshots at each other over it. Also,
now tilt; technical experts must put the pres
ident's proposal down on paper, deciding
how and where to start dismantling and de
stroying tanks and warplanes.
But for now, Bush can savor his victory
we won't begrudge him that. And we also
hope he has learned the confidence in this
summit that will allow him to make other
bold, crucial foreign policy decisions in the
future.
-Letters
Low blow
I was honestIv shocked to
read the editorial about the
(laffney Hoyt administration
(ODE, May 25) I really think
( (aiming their leadership was
invisible is harsh and unfound
ed.
The people that worked in
the ASUO this year worked
hard and were extremely dedi
cated. For the Emerald to sim
ply attack this administration
tor doing nothing is a low blow
to these people
When I went to the Emerald
to inquire about this editorial's
harshness, the response I got
was "we actually had fun writ
ing it " The Emerald ought to
be ashamed of having a good
time cutting people down in
such a manner and remember
its responsibility of writing
constructive editorials rather
than destructive
Along with objecting to the
tone of the editorial. 1 have to
point out that it is unfounded
Head you own newspaper,
folks. The Emerald has report
ed the ASUO’s involvement in
registering 2,000 voters, griev
ances on the semester issue,
and advocacy for child care na
tionally. state-wide, and at the
University
The Kmorald reported the
ASUO fought fee increases on
user fees, tuition increases,
building fees and financial aid
The ASUO was in the Kmerald
for informing students on elec
tion issues It fought for ten
ants' rights, according to the
Kmerald
I think the Kmerald ought to
think more clearly about what
it says before it simply prints
such a vicious attack bet ause it
brings some kind of personal
entertainment. The ('.aft
neyiloyt administration has
been a verv strong representa
tive for the student body and
ought to be recognized for that
|. Lauren Norris
Former Incidental Fee
Committee Chair
Waiting
I'm writing in support of
Steve Hanson's stance (ODE,
May 25) on the Emerald's letter
policy, as 1 was frustrated by a
similar problem
After a full scale arti
cle interview with Pam Daener
appeared in the Emerald focus
ing on “one side" of the ani
mal rights issue. I wrote a letter
in response. I was aware that
my letter was over the 250
word limit, but considering the
fact that the Emerald had made
no attempt to feature an article
presenting the "other side," I
thought the least they could do
was publish my letter There
were no other letters regarding
the article submitted.
Meanwhile, nunurrous letters
have appeared concerning is
sues such as abortion and fra
ternity practices Is the Emerald
teetering so precariously over
the abyss of biased journalism
that it can refuse to print one
letter in response to a full-scale
article and instead print multi
ple letters on another subject
again and again?
I welcome the Emerald to in
terview anyone from Students
for the Ethical Treatment of An
imals to write an article like
that about Pam Daener and
even the score. If they aren’t in
terested, they could still print
my letter. Still waiting
(ill Freidberg
Anthropology
Not all right
In reply to Dan Hawkins
(OllF. May 15)
You claim to be for the peace
movement, and attempt to
prove that graffiti perverts the
cause. You are actually pervert
ed perverted into false reali
ty. insulated from the brutality
of life in other parts of the
world or the brutalities of hun
ger. homelessness and the rav
aged ecosystem.
Whet you fail to grasp is that
there's a war being waged in HI
Salvador by the government
against the people. We don't
live with the trauma of a mili
tary state
Graffiti gets noticed; some
how the war doesn't Graffiti
forces you to think.
Graffiti is a reaction to the
smug complacency of a country’
responsible, but never account
able. for crimes against human
ity and the planet.
I won't condone graffiti of
hate. However hate is commu
nicated. it’s reprehensible.
fust because graffiti is illegal,
does that mean it’s wrong?
Outlawing graffiti does enable
us to apprehend messengers of
hate, but also suppresses
truths, truths which when hid
den ease the conscience.
You complain that graffiti is
"an eyesore." Should all eye
sores be removed? Should the
United States follow the totali
tarian example of creating an
artificial surface to convince
the public that "everything is
really all right." It reminds me
of l*OVV camps in Germany.
Iraq or Cambodia doctored up
for the Red Gross examinations
"Everything is fine here,” they
would tell observers.
Well, everything is not all
right. You missed the cause.
Can’t we sacrifice the clean
side of buildings for the home
less, the people of El Salvador,
our ancient forests?
|onah Bookstein
Philosophy