EDITORIAL
Alternative tickets
enliven the ballot
Paul Demean Wall* submitted hi* name as a Democratic can
didate far governor in the May primary elections
However. Wells is not s Democrat. He didn't expect to win
the race against highly favored John Kitzhaber. In fad. he even
told voters. “John Kitzhnber’s a candidate for governor. I am
not."
So why did he even bother running'
Wells threw his name into the guWnatorial hat to protest
the inequalities far ini by independent candidates soaking pub
lic office. Although only a few careful voters actually took the
time to rend the opinions of such an unfamiliar candidate.
Wells' stand against the American political process needs to be
recognized.
Independent candidates like Wells shouldn't have to pretend
to affiliate with major parties just to get their views acknowl
edged. Thoy shouldn't be penalized by choosing not to he a
Democrat or a Republican
in Bend last month, independent gubernatorial t endidates
were exi lud«d from a debate Only Kitirhabor and Denny Smith
wen* allowed to participate. Excluding candidates from
expressing their views at a public forum is an embarrassing
step backward for a nation that's supposed to be based on
democracy.
Third-party candidates should lie encouraged to run for any
public office. What harm can lie caused by ensuring the rep
resentation of alternative views through independent candi
dates?
Candidates who stray from the worn-out Democratic and
Republican arguments introduce fresh ideas and pressing
issues to American voters. And regardless of whether they win
or lose, their opinions can bring a new dimension to the issues
at hand Sometimes a fresh voice is all that's needed to work
past some of the nation's most difficult problems
Ross Perot's candidacy in the 1892 presidential election is
a familiar example of how independent candidates influence
the election process Perot made |>oopla think Although he lost
the election, many of his concerns fan anus the concerns of run
ning males bill Clinton and George Bush. Perot forced Clin
ton and Hush to put aside the rhetoric and face up to substan
tive issues, the deficit in particular
And Perot still has a following that continues to work on
poiitiial problems. United We Stand America, the organization
Perot founded, was the moat vocal opponent of the North
American Free Trade Agreement.
Many people disagree with Perot's motives, but at least he
opens donate. And that's the first step in working to solve
national problems.
Third-party candidates like Perot and Wells overcome many
obstacles [list to be in the running. They don't receive the back
ing of a national party and must work harder to get their names
recognized by voters. It seems absurd to punish them even
more by excluding these candidates from debates or other can
didate forums.
Independent candidates should be considered assets to
American politics. Don’t make them compromise their beliefs
Just to win on election.
Oregon Doily
*»0 IK>I )tS9 tuG<’4 0*100* ***0}
The OrwQOn a&tJr f nu*&ki»* pufcfcahed datfy Monday through f r«d*y during the school
year and Tuesday and Thursday during the ftummei by the Oregon Ofl'fy Emerald
Pubfaariing Co . trx. . at the Uorvererty o* Oregon, f ugene. Oregon
The Emerald operate* tfxiepende^fty o< the Unmers»ty wn|ih office* at So»te 500 of the
£»t> Mem oriel Unon and »* a member of the A**on>a*»d P»aa*
The f mereW «* private properly ThouNewM removal or uae ot paper* te protacuabie
CcMtOf-tn-Chtef: hary Soto
Emerald
Managing Lditor
Editorial Editor
Graphic* Editor
Freelance Editor
trv Depth Editor
Oav«d Trxyn
J»>« Harwood
Pasiity
Aiidwi Baum
Ed Kko^«r>a»©»ni
Newt Editor
Sport* Editor
Photo Editor
Supplement* Editor
Night Editor
f tatx* .» M***' tt
Cfwt* Met;
St'fiVSiQt
T?i*J4 No««
T ?t*ia Not)
A**o«ctaie tditorm
Nr*,s Stuff
VQfi ( il'p. StiAto*'! i ■.*t> ‘ t v A. ' M.V ! S* ;v Cl*
H*Qh& f (XJC9to&K-''A<tfn*Wtr**On
*.« A' :v. <• C>,v Co'vi^bv f • **-•*,«**' At r>
Paul V*n 5U*># Kd- Ac
G#n«»f a! Mjinm,}*'
Acrv*nfBmg Dh*cIcw a.i * ^
Production Manage* M
Adv«rti»ing M.v ■; r • ,»« f Hr M »• h*-/-- vv-? , M,\
M-Cfkw« M* S.vah M-* ' !«?>• M4!'->.Mnrt! W^koS
CtDHHMfHKf fv**,- Me* *V» ’ Ait • • 4 •
D*«rW>utiori .a-’"-" Uplp. f '• **v ‘Aafcv> i , ft*;.
»■ k'1 , • . &.:<
Production Dr* .1 ♦<*
rvud jow. j#
f«c t>«
N««r*foo*n
ssu
346*37.1?
QUESTION
Box
Q. l*Jould term-limit legislation
apply to all incumbents ?
S.C.. Buffalo
Not to tlr\e permanent iJxiuTukent.
I J\ J <»|Wi
I «o£>*ry rur fr+*4ur>Ajt\jt
no. onc mtvALi rvdAj /I
TO fon Gu/OA/VCf —
A
■ OPINION
Resource fee plunders pockets
Pai i Van Sk kit
It may have happened some
thin# like this You got
home from work one sum
mer afternoon, slammed the
front door behind you and left
your bag slumped against it
You started poking through the
day’s mail
"A bill from the University!"
you might have exclaimed, and
with boundless delight, you tore
open the envelope. Your joy fad
ed when you found scanned
below the words "Future Due
Items" and supported by
"Undergraduate Resident
Tuition" a mystical 550 figure
with a strangely ominous
description next to it
If your reaction was anything
like mine, you ext (aimed ver
bally, and with considerable
volume. "What the hell is a
"l et hnology Resource Fee'?"
As it turns out. this nebulous
description is supposedly vour
key to the world of computing
on campus. It brings you free
act ess to the computer lab and
thus the Internet and all of its
dumnin The I MF Computer
(jib already Imught us an entire
room full of brand-new Macin
tosh computers and intends to
increase phone line a> cess by
purchasing several now
modems.
A little quick math will reveal
that this fee gives the University
high is necessary, or whether
paying tin* fee should be manda
tory for all students.
Before the fee, each student
had the opportunity to use c am
pus computers, with Internet
ac c ess and E-mail for a tiny fee.
And it was voluntary. You paid
if you wanted to use the service;
it wasn’t forced down your
throat
Let's face it. Even with free
network access and shiny new
computers with which to use it,
not every student will want to
use the University’s computer
facilities. Suppose you were a
student attending for only one
or two terms? Is the computer
use you might incur during
those months worth the extra
$100? To use the lab for two
terms last year would have c ost
you only $20
The planners of this fee seem
to have been influenced by a
dangerous and extremely perva
sive problem affecting our cul
ture. something 1 like to term
Instant Gratification. That is. the
uncontrollable compulsion to
obtain what one desires as soon
as one is able.
! o apply this term, substitute
the phrase "The University" for
the word "one," add "even if
this means an excessive fee to be
paid by all students" to the end
and this term might start to
sound familiar.
When using this term to
describe the efforts of the Uni
versity planners, it should be con
sidered that a request for
increased access to technology
isn't unreasonable But do we
need it all right now, this year'
As with all things potentially
addictive, moderation is necus
Buvi
few I'er
rtnas one
next year.
We can whine about not get
ting any money from the state,
and we can worry about
whether wo can continue to
compete technologically. On the
other hand, the school could
have put it up for vote. The tech
nology pushers probably knew
the student body wouldn't have
had $850,000 sitting around,
though. Still, there may yet be
solutions.
A smaller fee is a good start.
($15 or $25 is more reasonable)
followed by voluntary payment
(of course access would be
linked with whether a student
paid the fee) and utilization of a
more moderate schedule for
updating the campus computers
could make a student-affordable
plan possible.
It’s not that I am against pro
gression of technology, or even
that I am afraid of it. I use, and
have used the campus computer
system. However, I do believe
we should approach technology
rationally and carefully. It is a
thing to bo respected, particular
ly when we don't know what
future technologies will bring
Macintosh's new Power PC chip
has already rendered the EMU
computer lab's brand-new Per
formas obsolete.
Remember when your ele
mentary school bought rooms
full of Apple 11s and Com
modore 64s' Those same com
puters are now collecting dust in
the district storerooms because
newer technology rendered
them useless They are useless
for exactly the same reason
The University is pushing for
so much money for the new
computers that it's obvious that
it couldn't wait to jump on tin'
electronic bandwagon and is
willing to risk thousands of do!
t M