Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 11, 1998)
I-1 CONTACTING US NEWSROOM: (541)346-5511 E-MAIL ode«oregon uoregon.edu ADDRESS: Oregon Daily Emerald P.0 BOX 3159 Eugene, Oregon 97403 ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode EDITOR IN CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmieitach NIGHT EDITOR Teri Meeuwsen Plans to place a flag on Skinner Butte are fine, as long as they address concerns about aesthetics and light pollution AN EMERALD EDITORIAL Some cities strive for consensus. Eugene appears to strive for controversy. The latest hastily assem bled battle is over a proposal by local veterans and others in the community to place a large flag on top of Skinner Butte as a war memorial. This flag would replace a massive cross that stood on the site until common sense and the Constitution pre vailed and a judge ordered the religious marker re moved from public land. To some extent, the fight over the cross was under standable. Those opposed to the cross had a solid legal and ethical basis for their ar guments, and those who sup ported it saw the removal as a slight to firmly held per sonal beliefs and to the veter ans whom the cross suppos edly honored. The new fight is somewhat more absurd. Flag opponents have complained that Eu gene would look like a mili tary installation, while sup porters have spouted patriotic rhetoric and hidden themselves in the symbolism of the flag. If both sides would use a little common sense, they would realize the idea of a modest display is a reasonable one. Opponents of the flag have raised several important questions, the most signifi cant of which concerns light pollution. If the flag is of the size and height currently proposed — 20 feet by 38 feet in size and on a 100-foot pole — it would be too difficult to raise and lower it each day. That would require the flag being lit at night, as regula tions require. The bright, upward-point ed spotlights required to illu minate a flag of that size would contribute greatly to light pollution in the Eu gene area. Such pollu tion is a concern for lo cal and international groups around the world. Those groups worry about light pollution for several reasons. Aesthetically, elec trically lit skies cover up stars and cheapen the ap pearance of an area. At a more practical level, the cost of essentially wasted illumi nation is high — as much as $1 billion a year, according to the International Dark Skies Association. Also troublesome, espe cially in a university com munity, is that light pollu tion makes astronomy difficult. Bright city lights blot out previously bright as tronomical objects. Several council members also complained, accurately, that a 100-foot-high flagpole would be out of scale with Skinner Butte and the area as a whole. Perhaps, as Regis ter-Guard columnist Don Bishoff suggested, giant flags are best left to used-car lots and fast-food restaurants. Then, of course, there was councilwoman Betty Tay lor’s infamous remark that the flag would make Eugene look like a military out post. Veterans, with some justification, were upset, but the reaction was far beyond what the inno cently intended remark war ranted. Of course, a monument to war veterans would have military undertones. And, of course, many Americans, with justification, see the flag as a symbol of U.S. aggres sion and imperialism. The flag wasn’t intended for those Americans — it is sup posed to be a reminder of the admirable service done by veterans, who didn’t choose the conflicts they fought in or the way they would be waged. Veterans and council op ponents of Taylor could have, quite reasonably, pointed that out. Instead, they muttered angrily under their breath and spoke angri ly out loud. Councilman Pat Farr was quoted in The Reg / T" <s> CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald ister-Guard as saying Tay lor’s statement was “repug nant.” Significantly more repug nant than Taylor’s comment is the concept that anything less than total adoration of the flag — any flag, no matter how tall or out of place — is treason. Americans should have the right to salute the flag and the right not to — otherwise it loses any sym bolic meaning it has left. More unnecessary squab bling will undoubtedly en sue when the proposal comes up at a public hearing. For some reason, Eugene ap pears to feel aimless without a Skinner Butte controversy to distract the public’s atten tion. We certainly don’t support every military and political action taken by the U.S. gov ernment. Nevertheless, we understand why the flag would be an appropriate symbol to honor veterans, who certainly deserve credit. If private money is avail able to build the monument, and if the project can be ad equately small to address aesthetic concerns and en sure the flag will come down at night, we see no reason why the council shouldn’t stop fighting about a hill and plant a flag at the top instead. Consider it a monument to community cooperation. Now maybe the council can worry about growth, multi national corporations, the continuing decay of the envi ronment and the civil liber ties of Eugene residents. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses may be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon. edu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Riverfront feedback I am a member of a committee that was recently formed by University President Dave Frohnmayer to review the proposed expansion of the River front Research Park. The committee is seeking written input from students and the community on any matter related to the research park. We rec ognize the strong need for feedback from the peo ple who will be affected by this expansion and in vite anyone with arguments related to the development to submit them to us in writing. In particular, we are interested in reasoned argu ments that add to the already substantial dialogue that currently exists. These arguments may be in corporated into the report that we present to the president. In addition, those with especially com pelling arguments may be invited to speak at a committee hearing. Statements can be sent to: rrpreview@lists.uoregon.edu or Riverfront Re search Park Review Committee, c/o President’s Office, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. Michelle Johnston Student Senate President Moral standards change I would like to take issue with at least one point made by Gordon Melby in his letter (ODE, May 4). Cultures, like life forms, tend to change over time to suit new conditions. This is called evolution, a concept which ad mittedly may be difficult for some believers in the god of “Abraham, Moses,” et al (and for that mat ter Inquisitors, witch-hunters and Klansmen) to accept, but the evidence, both in the written and the fossil records respectively, overwhelmingly indicates that indeed such processes take place. When these changes are rapid and profound, conflict, even violence, often results. Those who adhere to the “old ways” thus unfailingly utter thundering pomposities alluding to “a complete breakdown of moral standards,” when what is ac tually occurring is a shift from an outdated system of ethics to one which is hopefully more appropri ate for the times. More simply put, moral standards do not van ish, they merely transform. And if one loudly chooses not to subscribe to the new code, well, then one becomes a member of “a large, vocal mi nority” oneself. Bill Smee Public Safety Thumbs TO BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Everybody's buddy Bibi is holding up the Middle East peace process. His latest move was to refuse to concede to a U.S. demand to make plans for a small pullout from what will be Palestinian territory. Talks are, accordingly, stalled. While Netanyahu and the Israeli gov ernment are cer tainly in a posi tion to shove the Palestinians around because of their military advantage, the moral impera tive to obey U.N. and U.S. de mands for good faith negotiating ought to nag at the Israeli leader. TO U.S. SEN ATE APPROVAL OFNATO EXPANSION: Despite objec tions raised by liberal and con servative lead ers, foreign-poi icy pundits and several major newspapers, senators ap proved extend ing the military blanket of NATO over three more nations. As the Emerald argued earlier, expan sion could po tentially cost the U.S.billlons— senators reject' ed a move to limit America’s potential eco nomic liability -—and risk an gering Russia, a nuclear power that should be made to feel welcome, not isolated, in the midst of its on going economic crisis.
