EDITORIAL
Transportation bill
ignores big picture
George Bush proposes to spend $105.4 billion over
the next five years to prepare sod repair the nation's
highways and mass transit systems. One thing is for
certain, the country's dependence on oil will do noth
ing but increase. *
The bill allocates $87 billion for federal highways
while earmarking only $18.3 billion for mass transit
improvement.
The administration should be concentrating more
on mass transit systems instead of conceding the na
tion's reliance on oil. A switch to alternative transit
systems is not an overnight project, but it needs much
more than the lip service it is now receiving. ■
Mass transit, along with developing more alterna
tive energy sources, should be the cornerstones of the
administration's energy goals. Both this new bill and
the president's energy plan ignore conservation and
pollution problems caused by fossil fuels. Instead
Bush's policies continue to pander to oil and automo
bile lobbyists.
The government should work to have mil systems
in every major city and its suburbs instead of making
automobile iravel more appealing. Single-occupant ve
hicles in big cilies are a prime example of petroleum
abuse. Light rail systems will hr? more energy efficient
and give people an alternative means of commuting in
the big cities
The United States has known since the H»7;t oil
embargo that it cannot continue its current energy poli
cies which emphasize the use of petroleum.
Hnvirunmentaiisls are concerned, anti rightly so.
about the continued emphasis on highway travel,
which adds up lo more automobiles, higher oil con
sumption and more ozone-depleting poisons in the air.
Governmental anti independent studies prove the
earth's atmosphere is changing rapidly and that global
warming is a very real concern. Bush's new policy, by
ignoring mass transit alternatives, ignores this prob
lem.
This country places too much emphasis on car
Halos as an economic indicator. Auto sales are down for
the year, but analysis predict an upturn as soon as the
Persian Gulf War is over. Cheap, accessible oil means
more cam sold which translates into more driving.
Americans are so hung up on their cars and the conve
nience of individual transportation that they won’t
drive less unless forced to.
The nation's roads need repair, but the country
also needs a definite change in its transportation poli
cy. It must face the future with the idea of using less
oil, not more.
Automakers and oil companies have too much in
fluence in the government, and so much of the nation's
economy depends on the use of gas that any attempt to
switch .the focus of energy to soiar. geothermal, wind
or others merely brings cries of foul from the rich com
panies.
Ail they see is the profit margin. They fail to see
the benefits in healthier living, cleaner air and less for
eign dependence on energy. What's good for the coun
try is not always good for bottom line.
When the guif war is over, every American should
be protesting the nation’s energy and transportation
policy.
if not, they can look forward to facing a similar cri
sis down the road because of the country's neglect to
implement a safe, cleau and beneficial energy policy.
What do you know?
"We don’t know how this war is going to end; we
don't know what Saddam is going to do; we don't
know the exact course of it. ... We don't intend to go
beyond the U.N.'s resolutions at this time." — White
House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater speaking about the
allied goals in the Persian Gulf War.
LBr'S 60 F06 ;'^r./ ^
'-'A
L
J
LETTERS
Neither nor
It is ironic, to sm1, in tin* U*tt«*r
by |<mat)ian Bernstein and Jim
Bridge (ODE. Feb 14). tin*
claim that "ignorance often
prevails even the best intended
nl protests
In addition to the minor
point that "prevail" is never a
transitive verb. I also note that,
in explaining the non econotn
u reasons for fighting the I’er
sian Gulf War. they themselves
demonstrate an appalling igno
ranee of the inconsistencies in
Hush's position
Neither Reagan nor Hush
ever noticed vsliat a "mad.
ruthless tyrant " Saddam Hus
sein was w hile he was our ally
against Iran No one in the ail
ministration felt moved to de
fend the Kurds from chemical
weapons as long as Hussein
stood w ith America against the
Av atollah Khomeini
Neither Reagan nor Hush
seemed to feel that "we cannot
allow one country to invade an
other and expect to get away
with it” when those presidents
invaded, respectively. Grenada
and Panama
Bush did not regard a I ’nited
Nations Security (lounc.il reso
lution as a categorical impera
tive w hen it condemned his in
vasion of Panama
Neither Bush nor Reagan ob
jected to arming the man Bern
stein and Bridge define a " bar
barian who has been twisted
with years of hate and aggres
sion.”
I have not forgotten that
America bundled an insane asy
lum in Grenada by mistake
Now we have bombed civilians
in a shelter which an AP corre
spondent who saw it ilesi rilieil
as not apparently a military
structure
I. and other war protesters,
can be in favor of "freedom for
other people"' without wanting
In equal Hussein in aggression
Regina Psaki
Romance l.anguages
Nukes no option
Amid the din arising from
the clash of the pro and anti
war voices that fill the air.
when’ is the credible, reason
able and convincing voice we
need to hear, a voice that can
explain why the mixture of pa
triotism. logic, morality and
historical accuracy is proving
to he* so inadequate to move
Americans toward each other
instead of leaving the two
c amps polarized, ace using eac h
other, unable to be moved by
the irrefutable commonality of
their humanity?
Bertrand Russel, the* famous
British philosopher. once
wrote*. I appeal as a human
being to human beings above
all else remember your Illimani
tv and forget the* rest It you c an
do so, the* way lies open to a
new paradise*; if you cannot,
nothing lies before you but uni
versal death
At this point in human histo
ry must we not he starkly
aware of the validity of this ad
monition? Yet. like the prover
bial lemmings who periodic ally
marc li blindly to their death as
they tollow their leader into the
sea. we too. mindlessly and
willingly feed our loved ones
into the slaughterhouse of war
at the behest of our leaders
Bloody militarv engagements
arc* not a solution They are the
problem.
And when Vice President
Dan Quayle publicly an
nounces that the use of nuclear
weapons to defeat Saddam
Hussein is a considered option,
lit should not for a moment be
forgotten that he is only a
heartbeat away from the presi
denc y), it gives one sober pause
as we note the frayed thread
from which "the sword of
Damoc les" hangs so threaten
ingly over our heads
|oe Austin
Instructor
Peace, (ilasnost,
and Perestroika
Indiscreet valor
A colleague of ours. |im. has
notified me of late that he is go
ing to join the fight against
Saddatn Hussein's evil tyranny
I find it comforting to know
that Jim will 1m* out there, put
ting himself in harm's way to
win one for his "dipper " It is
just his sort of indiscreet valor
that makes for the kind of men
we need in the gulf.
That madman Hussein will
rue the day he decides to incur
the wrath of men like |im
who knows what needs to be
done and is not afraid to tell us
how to do it.
My only reservation to Jim’s
decision to enlist is that his ca
reer in primary education will
leave to be sacrificed for the
moment. Hut alas. Croat men
are not satisfied to be merely
"kindergarten cops."
Kevin Miller
Student
Lacking logic
In her letter [ODE. Feb 19).
koalini Roberts' logic, is "ques
tionable at most
In designating the business
school as "less important"
than other departments at the
University. Roberts employs
the same biased, normative
judgments she accuses the Uni
versity of making in its choice
of programs to Ih; cut
It doesn't follow that because
students are business majors,
they will be consumed by a re
lentless drive to "seek profit at
any cost." will "protect the
business interests of oil compa
nies and weapons manufactur
ers." or will make only margin
al. if any. contributions to soci
ety Do all students in other
majors then follow the opposite
path in life?
Clearly we must appreciate
the value of all programs at the
University, or at the very least,
recognize the diversity of edu
cationa! experience a widely
varied i hoic e of programs al
lows for.
It is important that students
are united in opposing cuts in
any and all departments. Only
this kind of unification will be
strong enough to send the mes
sage to the University adminis
tration that what we want first
and foremost is choice in our
education not choices made
for us by the administration or
those with one-sided views
such as Roberts expounds.
Melissa l.undstedt
International Studies/Russian