Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
RO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Thursday, November 8,2001
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Michael J. Kleckner
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
On Our Minds...
Opening up
the debate
on patriotism
Patriotism has become somewhat of a catch phrase of
late. In the media, we’re bombarded with examples
of what the “patriotic” response to the Sept. 11 ter
rorist attacks is — some say it’s to support the U.S. air
strikes in Afghanistan; others say it’s to practice our free
dom of speech and right to protest. Still others say we
should show our patriotism by flying the flag, by sending
donations to help the victims’ families and friends, or by
spending money to stimulate the economy.
In an attempt to begin a campuswide debate, the
Emerald asked several students and community mem-'
bers how their views of patriotism have changed since
the attacks.
Here are some responses:
“I’m disgusted by it. I don’t
think its being used correctly,
audit’s nice people are coming
together, but I don’t care about
the cause. What are people
being patriotic about?”
Lauren Donohue
sophomore, fine arts
“(Patriotism) is kind of a put
on. We ’re not in the same kind
of threat as World War II, so
people aren’t really into it. ”
Travis Kliever
freshman, undeclared
“There’s a part of me that
doesn’t feel good about peo
ple making money off of
flags, but they stand for
something most of us do feel
strongly about, so I’m not
going to say anything
derogatory about it.’’
Randy Burke
Rochester, New York
“Patriotism has gotten a lot
more popular, and it’s kind
of neat to be an American
these days. What happened
is sad, but it’s taught our
country a lot about freedom
and what it’s worth and
what it costs. ”
Lauren Sexton
senior, journalism
How do you currently
define patriotism?
We want to know what you think, and well attempt to print all
responses we receive on this important topic. Letters should ,.
f not be more than 250 words in iengf andguesillllll
' commentaries are limited to 550words. The Emerald
reserves the right to edit tor grammar, style and libel.
Photos by Thomas Patterson Emerald
Paying the price
Professor Cheyney Ryan labeled it
best as “the phenomena of the
endless war.” With World War I,
our goal of total Japanese and German
surrender was clear. And in the Gulf
War, the distinct
objective was to get
- Iraq out of Kuwait.
In Afghanistan, the
United States ini
tially wanted to
win the war by
bombing, a task
that is real
ly only suc
cessful in
developed
countries.
The likeli
hood of a
ground war is
looming.
When it happens, the govern
ment said it will take 500,000 sol
diers to control Afghanistan.
There’s also a possibility that we’ll
end up occupying Pakistan because of
its nuclear weapons, requiring even
more troops.
However, the armed forces can’t ship
more than half a million soldiers and
expect to continue to replenish those
numbers with extra troops. We current
ly do not have those types of numbers,
which would mean reinstitution of the
draft — something many Americans
have been nervously whispering about
since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The reinstitution of the draft fright
ened me enough when I realized it
could mean my 18-year-old brother
could be called in to serve Uncle Sam
in the near future. And then I was in
troduced to another possibility that hit
home even more — the likelihood that
women would be included.
Since President Nixon abolished the
draft in the 1970s because of tremen
dous opposition during Vietnam,
women’s rights and gender equality
have made progress in leaps and
bounds. And we’d be ignorant to think
that a draft would step back to the mas
culine ideals of several decades before,
after we’ve spent the last 20 years
demonstrating to society that there is
no such thing as a weaker sex.
With the draft comes the draft
dodgers. The government only recog
nizes a few excuses for draft defer
ment, and student status isn’t one of
them. Religious deferment, if you’re
Quaker, Mennonite or Jehovah's Wit
ness, is.
Another is homosexuality. Why?
The government’s explanation is in
cluding homosexuals in the service
would lead to bad morale for the troops
by
making
them uncom
fortable.
But how will this be
handled today? Would
the draft board ask to
receive proof (letter from a
psychologist, etc.)? Scenes
from a Pauly Shore movie
run through my mind, and
I'm not laughing. Add preg
nancy to the deferment mix
One can only hope that at
tempts to dodge the draft
wouldn’t result in a baby
boom.
My own feelings on the
draft are mixed. I can u
nderstand that I should be
prepared to fight for a war
that I’m going to be affect
ed by. Do I believe it’s a vi
olation of my civil fiber
ties that the government
can force me to serve -
and basically control
my fife or death? No,
but that doesn’t make
me eager to make the
trip to Afghanistan to
face up against
Osama bin Laden’s
followers, who have
no problem killing me for their
cause.
However, if we aren’t faced with the
actual possibility of having to make
real sacrifices for war, then isn’t there
something wrong with supporting a
war we personally have no investment
in? It’s easy to applaud or criticize the
war effort when it’s someone else’s life.
Even Elvis served in the Army for
two years. If the King could put his life
on hold for the benefit of our country, I
won’t complain if I’m called.
Rebecca Newell is a columnist for the Emerald. Her
views do not necessarily reflect those of the
Emerald. She can be reached at
rebeccanewell@dailyemerald.com.
Newell
Columnist
DRaft
NOTICE
.
Cor ns
In a story about University
cost-cutting measures
(“University reveals budget
OPEU bargaining chairman
Bart Lewis stated a ratio of
officers of administration to
classified workers in the
Oregon University System.
That ratio does not exist
"systemwide” because the
University of Oregon is the
only university to classify
administrators as officers of
administration.
lillitiiiiti
: .. ■ V
Letter to the editor
Public overreacting about anthrax
I would like to congratulate Josh Brown
on showing just how overdramatic people
can be. According to his letter (“Anthrax
cartoon shows poor taste,” ODE, 10/29),
Brown has a problem with an editorial car
toon that was printed in the Oct. 19 edition
of the Emerald. Well, I hate to break it to
him, but the cartoon was an editorial and
did not necessarily convey the feelings of
the paper or its staff.
Brown believes that there was no
comedic value to the cartoon. On the con
trary, I believe it spoke volumes about just
how many people are running around
thinking the sky is falling. Take, for exam
l pie, the pjape that was grounded |p Califor
•> vh V h V i
’> v*i 11 !> tVi i
VI i
nia following the first anthrax diagnosis be
cause someone believed that confetti from a
greeting card was anthrax. Or consider the
casino that was evacuated and closed be
cause of salt spilt on a table and believed to
have been anthrax. We used to be able to
punish those that screamed “fire” in a
crowded theater, but I have come to realize
that one cannot punish stupid people. They
are just born that way.
So when the sky doesn’t fall, what are we
supposed to do with all those that believed it
was going to?
Another question for Brown: Should a
newspaper be held responsible for being
“distasteful” for publishing?
Christopher Ouellette
senior, political science
f,~ v • '.tV.:
4 Vi iU