MONDAY: Opinion
TUESDAY: Politics
WEDNESDAY: Opinion
THURSDAY: Politics
FRIDAY: Opinion
'
J _1
\
- •
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
BY MAIL: P.O.Box 3159,
Eugene, OR 97403
BY PHONE: (541)346-5511
BY E-MAIL: ode@oregon.
uoregon. edu
IN PERSON: Suite 300, EMU
Debate: Don’t expect enlightenment
Tonights final verbal duel between Clinton
and Dole will be as empty as the candidates.
If you are already tired of
hearing about targeted tax
cuts, balanced budgets and
bridges being built to the fu
ture, it might be wise to skip the
second presidential debate
tonight in San Diego. And if you
do plan to watch President Clin
ton and Bob Dole duke it out
again on national television, be
OPINION
prepared to
listen to more
of the same
political
rhetoric used
in the Oct. 6
debate.
Despite the
fact that Dole
is up to 20
points behind
Clinton in the
polls, don’t expect him to come
out swinging tonight in an at
tempt to make up ground. In
stead the most vicious that Dole
is bound to get with Clinton is to
call him a “liberal” over and over
in hopes that the label will
conjure up nightmarish vi
sions of communists, tax
es and Jimmy Carter. The
Republican headquarters
in Oregon has stressed
over and over that “Dole
is going to win this one
on the issues, period.”
So any hopes viewers
of the debate have of
Dole snapping and
calling Clinton a dope
smoking hippie are
probably not going to
come true. Instead,
each candidate will
try to focus on the im
portant “issues” at
hand.
While a debate focused on the
issues sounds like a good way to
inform the public of what these
two presidential hopefuls stand
for, people who watch the actual
debate are likely to walk away
with less knowledge than they
came in with. Presidential candi
dates often use the debates to try
to make themselves look good,
not to enlighten the public
about the
sues!*'
And because most people don’t
have a great amount of knowl
edge about the issues being de
bated, stretching or changing the
truth is easy.
For example, during the last
debate Dole claimed that Clinton
passed the largest tax increase in
world history. While numerical
ly Clinton’s $260 billion tax in
crease is in fact the largest ever,
these numbers are meaningless
at face value. In order to under
stand how much Clinton’s tax in
crease really was compared with
previous tax hikes, you have to
account for inflation, rising in
comes and population increases.
When you look at the tax in
crease with these factors in
mind, it becomes apparent that a
tax increase of $260 billion today
is significantly less than a $260
billion increase ten years ago. In
fact, it is even less than Bob
Dole’s own $230 billion tax in
crease in 1982.
Of course, Dole doesn’t
have a monopoly on mis
leading facts; Clinton
has a handful of his
own. For in
stance,
pointed to his own crime bill as
the reason crime has gone down
during his administration. While
crime rates did go down while
Clinton was president, this does
n’t necessarily imply that Clin
ton’s crime bill was successful. A
quick lesson in basic economics
reveals that whenever the econo
my is in a recovery (which it was
during Clinton’s administration)
crime rates always go down.
Clinton could have slept through
his whole presidency and pro
duced similar crime rate results.
Unfortunately, there is little
reason to suspect Clinton or Dole
will enlighten viewers with any
substantial information tonight.
We’re bound to hear some mildly
amusing jokes, speeches about ■
bridges and visions of the future,
buzz words like liberal and con
servative and false or misleading
boasts from both sides. It is sad
that these debates, with such po
tential to help voters decide who
to vote for, are more misleading
than informative.
It’s no wonder Americans are
becoming more and more cyni
cal about the political process.
Until our elected officials start
giving us reason to trust in what
they tell us, there is little reason
to suspect this trend will end.
If the debates are a way to
measure the ability and
\ character of our potential
president, we all may be
feeling a little bit uneasy
about the future.
/ \
Brian Diamond, a
sophomore majoring
in journalism, is a
columnist for the
Emerald. His views
do not necessarily
represent those of
the newspaper.
CHRIS HUTCHINSON/E me raid
P.0 BOX 3159. EUGENE. OREGON 97403
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year and Tuesday and Thursday during the sum
mer by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University
of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. A member of the Associated Press, the
Emerald operates independently of the University with offices at Suite
300 of the Erb Memorial Union
The Emerald is private property. The unlawful removal or use of pa
pers is prosecutable by law
Editor-in-Chiel: Steven Asbury
Managing Editor Jennifer Carter Night Editor. Thom Schoenborn
Community: Jennifer Schmitt, editor. Jean Bond
Entertainment: Nicole Kreuger, editor Jesse Stephenson
Higher Education: Kristine Sohnrey, editor Tamyra Howser, in
depth. Benjamin Kwasney
Opinion: Ashley Bach, editor Chris Hutchinson, illustrator Brian
Diamond. Larry Haiti. Sonja Sherwood
Politics: Shana Cohn, editor. Doug Irving
Special Projects: Tiffany Smith
Student Activities: Kristin Bailey, editor. Angie Suchy, Tom Potter
Sports: Mark McTyre, editor. Andrea DeYoung, assistant editor. Chris
Hansen, Ryan Frank, Ryan Halvorsen
Copy Desk: Thom Schoenborn. copy chief. Sarah Kickler, Mike
Schmierbach, Kendra Smith
Presentation: Dennis Bolt, editor. Cosmos Corbin, Matt Garton
Photography: Mathew Stiffler, editor Andrew Brackensick, Joe
Bunik, Amanda Erickson, Shannon Kilduff, Chad Patteson
Freelance: Lara Pittman, editor On-Line: Nicholas Stiffler, director
General Manager Judy Riedl
Advertising: Becky Merchant, director Anne Amador, Lee Yen Beh,
Marco Chmg, Yujin Chi, Matt Johnson, Anne Miller, Trina Shanaman,
Rose Soil, Matt Solomon, Greg Walsh
Classified: Tara Sloan, manager. Natasha Lumpkin, Debbie Levy,
Heather Moye
Production: Michele Ross, manager. Ingrid White, coordinator
Shawna Abele, Laura Daniel. Tara Knight, Melissa Lebahn, Molly Mc
Canta, Allison Stormo, Mike Young
Business: Kathy Carbone, supervisor. Judy Connolly
Distribution: John Long, Jeff Johnson. Ferenc Rakoczi
Newsroom.(541)346-5511
Oisplay Advertising.(541) 346-3712
Business Office.(541) 346-5512
Classified Advertising.(541) 346-4343
LETTERS
Useless police
Imagine this: You’re sitting
on the porch of your house
with a couple of buddies after
the football game on Saturday
night. Because you’re sitting
on your porch listening to mu
sic with a few friends, party
goers walk by and infer you’re
having a party. You’re a nice
guy, so you let a few people
come and hang out for a bit.
You offer them a free beverage.
You’re being a good host.
Then, all of a sudden, one of
the guys starts picking fights.
Being the non-violent, nice
person you are, you kindly ask
these people to leave. These
guys get offended by your mea
ger request and for no reason,
strike you over the head with a
walking cane. They keep strik
ing you until one of your
friends tries to pull you out of
the circle they have formed
around you. Then the atten
tion gets directed toward your
friend, and they decide to
strike him with 40-ounce bot
tles of beer — four of them to
be exact.
So what do you do in this
situation? Let me suggest buy
ing a gun. Don’t bother calling
the police department. We
called the Eugene police de
partment and when they final
ly showed up, they were
scared, disorganized and use
less. They made no arrests,
they got no names, and they
acted like they had better
things to do (Winchell’s closes
at 2 a.m.).
This happened at my
friend’s house on Saturday,
Oct. 5 at 1:30 a.m. Currently,
they haven’t found these
punks. Actually, they haven’t
started looking for these
punks. If the Eugene police de
partment was a student and
this was a test, I would fail that
student ten times.
Simon Austin
Pre-Business Administration
Details lacking
First, I am not a party in
Brennan Rounds v. OSBHE
nor is the Commentator, but
the Oct. 8 article written by
Angie Suchy was insulting in
two ways and bears response.
Ms. Suchy first made the
misinformed presumption that
the Commentator would have
any official statement about
the case. Check the record —
the Commentator and all but
two of its staff members are not
parties in the case. A little re
search would have cleared this
up.
Ms. Suchy then failed to
contact Don Corson or Thomas
Nelson and Clarence Belnavis,
the attorneys involved in this
piece of litigation. Instead, po
litical punditry passed for offi
cial analysis of the legal
process.
The case is first taken to a
magistrate for a summary judg
ment based on existing prece
dent. Judge Coffin, acting
merely as a magistrate in this
case, decided that existing
precedent did not pertain pre
cisely to the facts of this case
and dismissed it for summary
judgment. This only impedes
the speed with which the case
is decided. As any prior case
like it shows you, however, the
buck does not stop here. The
case goes to Judge Hogan in a
federal circuit court and then
to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals for judgments. PIRGs
nationwide in similar litiga
tion typically win at the level
of the summary judgment.
Once taken to trial court or an
appeals court, however, they
typically lose.
While a visit to the Law
School and a couple of long
distance calls would have
been necessary, the additional
research is well worth the cost
for a well-researched story
worthy of front page coverage.
Farrah L. Bostic
Publisher
Oregon Commentator
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
The Oregon Daily Emerald
welcomes your opinions on is
sues concerning the University
community. You may submit a
letter no longer than 250 words
to the Emerald offices at Suite
300 in the EMU or send us your
thoughts via e-mail at
ode@oregon.uoregon.edu