Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemeralcl.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Wednesday, January 23,2002
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Editorial
Now's the time
for campaign
finance reform
(U-WIRE) CORVALLIS, Ore. — While the
tale of Enron's demise is a terrible one, it will
hopefully create awareness for an issue that
has long been overlooked by the general pub
lic — campaign finance reform.
With 71 senators and 188 House members —
nearly half of Congress — receiving money
from Enron, it should be clearly evident that
one corporation went to the cookie jar a few
too many times. And now, pie is in the face of
everyone involved.
But this wouldn't be such a major fiasco if
campaign finance laws were reformed, keep
ing soft money from large corporations from
funding political campaigns. Congress should
look at the case of Enron as further evidence of
the need for controls on the huge amounts of
money flowing into politics,
Campaign finance reform has made head
lines before. Sen. John McCain and presiden
tial candidate Ralph Nader are loudly in favor
of the idea. But most Republicans and Democ
rats plug their ears when they realize how
much money they could lose if such legisla
tion were to pass.
Enron didn’t face the same scrutiny that Cali
fornia energy producers faced during the “cri
sis” of 2001. This should raise some eyebrows.
Now, thousands of Enron employees have lost
their life savings, while the Enron brass thought
they would come out looking like gold.
Financial demands on those seeking office
has grown steadily, forcing candidates to raise
more money in hopes to earn the recognition
and then trust of their constituents.
According to the Center for Responsive Poli
tics, during the 1996 election cycle, candidates
in the House of Representatives who raised the
most money won 92 percent of the time. In the
Senate, 88 percent won. Given such a direct cor
relation between campaign spending and elec
toral success, it's not surprising that illegal
fund-raising scandals have plagued both parties.
And this scandal proves just that. Both Re
publicans and Democrats will be victims of
Enrongate. Now, we must trust them to fix the
problem.
This staff editorial first appeared in
Oregon State University’s Daily Barometer.
Jeremy Lang Jacquelyn Lewis
managing editor assistant editorial editor
Goida Portillo ’ Patricia HacIBll!
com munity representative community representative
Leon Tovey
newsroom representative
CORRECTION
The mug shot for the story “How to spend $4 million,”
(ODE. 1/22} misspelled ASUO Programs Finance Committee
Chairwoman Mary Elizabeth Madden’s name. The Emerald
regrets the error.
CLARIFICATION
Tuesday's article about the Olympic Torch f Olympic torch to
stop m Eugene,” ODE, 1/22} should have read that no ®!
University student will carry the torch In Eugene.
Just say OUI
I am an average American who is
aware of my shortcomings. One of
these shortcomings is my inability
to speak a foreign language with some
level of proficiency. Despite three
years of French class in high school
and two at the University, I can still
only speak at what
could be described
as an elementary
manner with such
an atrocious accent
it makes native
speakers cringe.
Despite this, I
took issue with the
Emerald editorial
board’s Jan. 17 edi
torial “No, Non,
Nein; In any tongue
‘no’ to language re
quirement,” that de- Columnist
scribed this Univer- -
sity’s two year language requirement
as “merely a nuisance” and “nothing
more than a bother” for students.
I’ll admit that I would often swing
from bored to frustrated during my
French classes. And I’m sure I gave my
professors an equal sense of frustration
at my inability to grasp basic French.
But looking back, I have begun to un
derstand the purpose of the require
ment for a bachelor of arts degree.
The editorial board stated “language
enrichment is counterproductive”
when students are required to take
language courses. I feel this argument
is false on two counts. The first being
if that argument is taken further, all re
quirements are counterproductive
based on their nature of being require
ments. And secondly, from my own
experience, I know I have been en
riched by studying a different lan
guage. As a journalism student, I
found it interesting at times to study a
foreign language and I still feel lucky
to drop the occasional French phrase,
even though it probably isn’t com
pletely correct.
I mentioned before that I’m an aver
age American, and that leads to anoth
er point in defense of the requirement.
As an American, I’ve been short
changed by our language education.
I’m not terribly upset about this be
cause I feel it makes more sense for
foreigners to learn English. Yet I feel
in light of the United States’ poor for
eign language education system, it is
unreasonable for the editorial board to
expect the language curriculum to be
specialized for majors because it
would entail a higher level of lan
guage proficiency. It’s a stretch to say
that first and second year foreign lan
guage students should be speaking in
terms of their majors when they can
barely converse on a basic level.
As to immersion programs and years
abroad that the editorial board argues is
a better way to educate students in for
eign languages, I agree these are good
methods. But again, one has to have a
certain level of proficiency in the ba
sics before they reap the full benefit of
such programs. I’m a skier, and when I
was learning to ski I went through two
methods of instruction. The first was
being left on top of the mountain and
then told to make it down any way I
could. The other was hours of patient
and considerate training by my father.
My father’s instruction proved to be the
most valuable, just like two years of
slow and careful instruction in a for
eign language would prove.
I don’t take my inability to speak
French as a sign of this school’s failed
language requirement. I view it as my
own problem, but I do see this lan
guage requirement as one part of my
education, which is this institution’s
responsibility to provide.
E-mail columnist Andrew Adams at
andrewadams@dailyemerald.com. His opinions
do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald.
Letter to the editor
Vote to get
health care dollars back
The news has been reporting double
digit increases in health care costs in our
country. Premiums rose 8 percent in
2000,11 percent in 2001 and are expect
ed to rise 15 percent this year. These re
ports say employers can no longer pay
for health care. More of the cost must be
passed to consumers because care
providers have already cut all costs pos
sible. Projections indicate that even
more of us will become uninsured.
Even without doing intentional re
search, I've found numerous articles de
tailing huge profits by providers, mil
lions of dollars in executive pay and
billions in bonuses. The industry evi
dently considers these costs sacred be
cause there is no mention of cutting
them; this is where our health care dol
lars are going. With these priorities, it’s
no wonder that we have the some of the
world's highest costs and worst health
statistics of all developed countries.
We're letting ourselves be robbed blind!
In Oregon, we’re fortunate to live in
one of the states that will get to vote on
bills creating its own health care
plans. Some of them are going to pass
in spite of obvious opposition. This is
our opportunity to take our dollars
from those who use them to line their
pockets and to spend them on health
care. It makes sense to me, and I ask
each of you to please read the com
mon sense proposal (healthcareforal
loregon.org), get registered if you're
not and vote unnecessary expense out
of our budgets.
Jane Moodie
Eugene