T EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Ryan Frank
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond
■■ £..V-y. ^ ■■ ' ■■ :
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
'• •• / • ' mmwm® sa & ass ' =
m NEWSROOM:
S (541)346-5511
■ DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
■ (541)346-3712
•= BUSINESS OFFICE:
5 (541) 346-5512
* CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
U (541)346-4343
SwSBSSW <? i *55 ' < 4 Sts® < % v\ ' ' ''' '4 f gg$ , ,V g *
Banned in the USA'
■ OUR OPINION:
The proposal to
put a federal ban
on advertising
distilled beverages
both violates
freedom of speech
and fails to deal
with the more
influential beer
and wine
advertisements
cc
L
iquor has no
business with
kids.” While
few would dis
agree with this statement
that President Clinton
made last week, many
would disagree with the
means by which the Presi
dent hopes to take to achieve
this goal.
In order to ensure that young
people are protected from the
dangers of alcohol, Clinton is
planning to enact a federal ban
on hard alcohol companies air
ing television ads. For 50 years,
distillers of hard alcohol imposed
a self-regulated ban on television
..iJXXACiii—
i n ns ns
ter the alcoholic bev
erage most abused by
youth — beer. Beer ad
vertisements flood the
airways every day and
probably have more in
fluence on young peo
ple than hard alcohol
I ads ever will. After all,
I most people don’t start
/ off drinking straight vod
/ ka. They start with “soft
I er” alcoholic beverages
like beer and wine.
Alcohol is alcohol.
Whether it comes in the
form of a malt or distilled
beverages, its effect on the
body is the same. So whv ban
commercials, dui recently, aner some dis
tillers began airing commercials, the in
dustry voted to lift the ban.
The proposal for a federal ban on hard
alcohol raises several problems. First,
there is the issue of First Amendment
rights and what power the government
should have in limiting what can be ad
vertised. Second is the apparent
hypocrisy behind banning hard alcohol
advertisements while continuing to allow
beer and wine companies to spend mil
lions every year on television spots.
The right to free speech is one of the
fundamental liberties we, as Americans,
value. The First Amendment was created
to ensure that all people, no matter how
unpopular their message, should be al
lowed to voice their views. Popular opin
ions, after all, don’t need to be protected
by the Constitution.
For better or worse, hard alcohol com
panies create a product that many people
enjoy using. While the government has
every right to try and educate people on the
dangers of alcohol, they do not have the
right to censor those who wish to promote
it.
If consumers want to buy hard alcohol
products, distillers have the right to get in
formation out about their product. Of
course they already are doing that through
magazine ads, billboards, T-shirts and oth
er advertisement avenues. Creating televi
sion ads would only add to the ad cam
paigns already being run.
Of course the biggest problem with ban
ning hard alcohol advertisements for the
sake of protecting children from alcohol is
that it would do nothing to limit the
amount of beer and wine ads aired on tele
vision.
If Clinton is really concerned with pro
tecting youth from alcohol, why not go af
one form of advertising while placing no
regulations on the other?
While the government shouldn’t place
an all-out ban on hard alcohol products, it
would be wise, due to the nature of the
product, to place regulations on advertise
ments. Allowing ads to air only at night
when most kids are sleeping or placing
warnings and disclaimers on advertise
ments are two ways the government can
protect young people without violating
the First Amendment.
However, these restrictions, if enacted,
should be universal for all alcoholic bev
erages. That includes beer and wine,
which are just as harmful to young peo
ple. If Clinton isn’t willing to regulate
beer advertisements, he has no right to try
and regulate hard alcohol ads. After all, all
alcohol is essentially equal.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board.
BACKGROUND
■ In November of j
1996, distillers
voted to lift a 50
year, self-imposed
ban on any radio or
television adver
tisements. The de
cision was made
after Seagram's, a
producer of hard
alcohol, began air
ing advertisements
in Texas. Since the
announced deci
sion, the Federal
Communications
Commission has
remained dead
locked over
whether or not to
launch an official
inquiry.
LETTERS
Open ASUO
I thank the Emerald for reporting on the
EMU Board meeting that allocated $50,000
for the proposed amphitheater, but it seems
to me that it would be more in line with the
interests of students in general if someone
either from the ASUO or the Emerald could
manage to publicize important steps being
taken by the Executive to spend our money.
There is a pattern of behavior here, folks.
We’ve got ASUO Vice President Glen Ban
field admitting that he decided to just not be
around Suite 4 after the basketball seat-de
nial incident, and now, a flat-out denial of
student input in a process creeping forward
inexorably toward wasting $300,000 to pat
ASUO and its friends in the administration
on the back.
President Matt Scotten and Glen Banfield
have managed to work with supporters to
gather more money for their pet project
without getting any substantial input from
students. Let’s see how long it takes them to
say that the idea was a product of a commit
tee, rather than their own.
The average student does not have the
time or the energy to play detective in the
ASUO office on a daily basis to find out
what the hell is going on in there. A little
more consideration and a little more forth
rightness with actions that are less than
popular, if the Executive really believes
what it’s doing is right, is in order.
Selena Brewington
Computer Science
Select quality
It seems to me that the quality of my pro
fessors affects me much more than the qual
ity of the University basketball coach. So
why did we pay Jerry Green $250,000 when
the average teaching faculty salary is some
thing like $40,000?
Derek Schutt
Geology
Footnotes perception
I’d like to set the record straight by saying
that Footnotes does not support discrimina
tion of any kind, political or otherwise, on
this campus. Footnotes is run by students,
for the benefit of all students.
The whole Jenna Wasson subscription in
cident is regrettable, only because it has
served to mask the real intention of many
EMU Board members — that of booting
Footnotes from the EMU. The political
games continue, as the reason Footnotes
Board members were not present at the
EMU Board meeting on Wednesday was be
cause board members did not find out about
it until the day of the meeting.
As an organization, we want only to be
treated fairly by the EMU and be allowed
adequate space to serve the academic needs
of the university. On a personal note, I find
it somewhat ironic that the EMU Board can
give away $50,000 of student money for a
concrete courtyard, but can’t bring them
selves to give even third-rate treatment to a
non-profit, student-run and academically
focused campus organization.
Devon London
Footnotes Board
Earth story
Passing by a copy of “OSPIRG Impact” in
the Honors College, I was struck by a head
line: “Students organize for the earth’s
sake.” Does anyone ever stop to think about
these things before they print them? OS
PIRG's statement doesn’t make any sense.
What does it mean to act "for the sake of
the earth?” Will the Earth notice? Does it
care? The Earth is a rock, made of molten
nickel, hurtling through space. If your ac
tions are performed in the name of a rock,
then you’re an idiot in the most literal sense.
You’re the picture of the insane man on the
street, babbling to a tree, a wall, a cloud,
which cannot and does not respond to your
pleas.
This kind of thing makes me wonder
whether we’ve ever moved past tribal ani
mism at all. Do we still worship the objects
around us, investing them with spiritual
characteristics and magical properties? In
terms of religion, has our society come full
circle? It makes far more sense to organize
for our sake, as conscious, sentient beings
aware of our actions and capable of re
sponse, than to live our lives in relation to
the imagined needs or desires of the rock
upon which we happen to live.
Modern pantheism is rife with contradic
tions and difficulties; it’s completely irra
tional, meets no objective criteria and is un
suited for a supposedly educated
population. Given this, and the tendency of
the University community to disregard or
ganized religion for its supposed deficien
cies, one wonders whether the student pop
ulation ever really thinks at all.
Colby Phillips
Journalism