_Editorial Beware of Bush's false nuclear peace When George Bush announced last Thursday he was scrapping a modernization of the 1-ance nuclear missile, some took it as just another sign that peace — true, lasting peace — was on the way. In reality, it was just another daring move by Bush’s cunning political mind. While canceling the improved lance does ease some of the constant throat of nuclear immolation, Bush really didn't have much choice in the matter. The Lance is a medium-range missile deployed in West Germany with a target range only effective under 75 miles. The new system would increase the range to about 250 miles but would still limit tin* weapon to use on East German soil. It seems unlikely West Ger mans would approve deployment of a new weapon aimed strictly at their soon-to-be reunited brethren. When you couple the above with a Congress which is becoming increasingly hostile to defense spending, you come up with an obsolete weapons system with a big ($112 million) renovation price tag. Given those factors. Bush's decision should come as no great shock. Almost lost in the headlines over canceling of the I .a nee upgrading w'pre some remarks Bush made at the same press conference. In it. he acknowledged for the first time that Gorbachev may he facing a serious pow er challenge over the Lithuania crisis. While this ad mission is certainly interesting, another announcement should lx; carefully looked at. In his speech, Bush called (or a modernization of existing weapon systems in West Germany and intro duced plans for a new air-launched nuclear missile. The one thing all of these have in common is their range. All are capable of hitting the Soviet Union, and are in fact, designed to do so. Back in the 1950s, in the heady days of early atom ic research, the Pentagon took a stance of “more bang for your buck” toward nuclear weapons. Every mili tary agency wanted weapons of their own. Depth charges, mortar shells and even mines went nuclear. But last year changed the role of NATO and the need for atomic weapons in Europe. Bush seems to have realized this, so he is scrapping all medium-range weapons targeted at Eastern European countries (Le. potential allies) while upgrading systems threatening to the Soviet Union. Bush's “new" policy is just a continuance of the old doctrines of “the Evil Empire,” “rollback” and “containment.” The Soviet Union is still the major threat despite what our leaders have said “disputing" the fact. Bush has been careful not to push for peace, content to react, rather than act. __ (fregon Daily _ _ Emerald P (I H«i\ \ I hisrni Uirgim '*’#1' Tht* Of eg >n Daily Fmera J 'S published Monday through Friday e*. ept during ijjiam Ai'i-f r .! va at'•.•••ns. by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co at the University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon the Emerald is ope fated independently ot the University with offices on the th-fd flewii f the Eft) Memorial Union and is a member o» the Asso. .aled Press The Emerald is private property The unlawful removal or use of papers is pros e. utabie by law Editor Thcn .js pr - A I"1 Managing Editor Editorial Editor Graphics Editor Encore Editor Aiice Wheeler Don Peters M.»rk Ylen Keivm Wee News tailor Sports Editor Supplements E ditor Night Editor Cnnstopher biai Tracy Sumnei Da?ia JacKson Defuse ChMon Associate Editors Community m vV.i Student Government/Activities Gather■ H.iaU*v Higher Education Administration i'hns Bouneff Features Demse C Mon Reporters June An 1 ido Pete*' Logs a e Ashley Conklin Dan E'Sle' Stephanie Hu I i.e-1 Joe Kidd ^ayne Lakehsh. Pat Ma .1 :h Stephanie Monomer, Cam Sivtsmd. a i .f> Thornton Photographers ■ ... ,-j Martm Thiel Advertising Maureen Bemad*-; i Mark Bru nt.ige She! .e Hagen Scott Mi A. .y Amy M-ttr-staedt Men .sa Ne son Kathy Smith hnsti Strother. Ed ward Wenu k Apprentice Kathy End itt Be ky Hun*- Jennife' KOstu Ken McBride Ni le Leahy S j* a M gi.f A )sta Stephen M • siey M.ir.i Ne*man L isa Richman Production .-*• •••- An'.,, Kathryn Bart • Ten B " g j**d Cuirfc At..,# Cam n. ; lotus Child Jim F nch Yvette Gilt, Jennifer Huey Linda Ktaastad, EtiSa Chtriia ■ !.'•■ Mas .Ve 51 M Ange ,< Mum.*, Cam.he PanseA * Anna Hern tie > Jam*’ Sc h ri ifii .ills studies Ante! 11 ,i I sen though I am graduating tins spring. I still think the I 'diversity is making a costK error h\ eliminating this pro gram (diet Nakada History Contradicts lay Pent hen V s letter {Ol)E. Mas -t) t ontradii ts his assertion that he is "not homophnbii. " l dime on1 Despite yout feeble attempts to appear civilized, your letter reeks of homo phobia I think you failed mis erably in forming a rational ar gument and let me tell you why If your distaste for non-het erosexuality is not an issue, why do you condemn same-sex couples for behaviors that are far more flagrant among hetero sexuals'' People with other than heterosexual orientations must be tree to express their at trai tion without societal retri bution It is societal hypocrisy lor this freedom to he restrict ed The (lay Pride articles were one was of letting people know that non heterosexuals do the same things (under fire) that the sexual majority does with out a second thought engage in "rowdy sex" and make com mitments Many hloi k out this similarity and then treat the sexual minorities accordingly, that is. blindly II you can deal vs ith the ahstrai tion of non-het erosexuality hut flinch when you see women holding hands, I suggest that you have prob lems. "Freakish?” What about women who meticulously paint themselves. don restrictive ( lothing proclaimed "oh-so hip by fashion fast ists. and then teeter off on four-inch heels to offer themselves on the lot al meat markets' What about 'studs who strut around in a thinly-veiled mating dance looking for "chicks?" These t ustoms are unblinkinglv at cepted, but nevertheless. I think "freakishness" is a rela tive term, and is unsuitable for discussions about ethics. Oh. and "keep your sexual leelings ill the closet where they belong?" I.ook. I’ll put my feelings li.D:k in tin* closet the da\ you hang yours up next to them Will 1 he seeing you in the walk-in anytime soon? Marina Well Russian studies Clarification As a May 2 Oregon Duilv I'm vrald editorial points out. re cunt changes in i hild care funding at the University "can he confusing " 1 would like to help t lardy who Inis re< eived funding, from what source, and lor what purpose. I he ASl'O C.hiid Care I ask Force received a $100,0(H) grant from the Oregon State Scholar ship Commission to fund a por tion of the currently student fee-funded ASl'O Child Care Subsidy Program The student body, through im idental fees, will fund an additional $100,740 in suhsi dies that will go to graduate students unmarried couples foreign students and other non resident undergraduates who have < hild care expenses and who demonstrate financial need Monies Irom both sourr es will he distributed by staff of the KMC Child Care programs under guidelines established In the ASl’O Child Care Task Force and the 1FC Currentl\ less than 40 pruri ent of the lam ilies rei eiving subsidies have children enrolled in FMl Child Clire programs, while the rna joritv use other child t are The KMC Child Care and l)e vidopment Centers received in creased student tee funding via