Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
HO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerakl.com
Online Edition:
www. dailyemerald com
Monday, March 11,2002
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
If you’ve been keeping a close watch on
the economy lately, then you’ve proba
bly heard something about the steel in
dustry. Since foreign steel is being sold
at much cheaper prices, the debate has been
whether or not to enforce tariffs. The United
States’ steel industry is losing money and
has been asking — or should I say pleading
— with the government to bail it out for
quite some time. But, of course, steel con
sumers, who number 50 for every one steel
worker, think they’re getting quite a “steal”
and don’t want to pay higher prices for the
same goods made in the United States.
Like most political situations, this was a
sticky one for President Bush. How to please
everyone? Quite simply, he couldn’t. But at
least he could have pleased the majority of
people. Everyone thought Bush would take
the middle ground and enforce a mix of quo
tas and light tariffs on certain products. In
stead, Bush has decided to enforce a 30
percent tariff on all main products phased
out over three years. He may be making
senators from steel-producing states hap
py, but he’s upsetting many of the very
people who helped him get where he is,
such as car manufacturing companies.
As a candidate in the 2000 elections,
Bush broadly pushed pop
ular programs such as ed
ucation and prescrip
tion drug benefits
for seniors, and
he promised
to weed out
needless
defense
spending.
So much
for those
supposed
“promis
es." They
have been
flushed
down the
con
gressional toilet in the
name of the “war on
terrorism” and com
bating the pro
claimed “recession.”
I suppose Americans
ought to be under
standing about
\\ the budget
deficit issue,
but this whole
tariff thing has
gone a little far.
Basically,
other countries
have been subsi
dizing their own
wealth and
“dumping” their
products on us.
True, it is hard on
the steel industry,
but it helps every
one else. Now we
may save steel in
dustry jobs, but it’s
more than likely
Peter litsey Emerald
that other industries will have to lay off
workers as they pay higher prices for steel.
Not only this, but our relationships with for
eign producers will be severely damaged,
including our important allies in the war on
terrorism such as Brazil, Argentina, Russia
and Turkey. Now talk is brewing in Europe
and Latin America of possible trade retalia
tions. Yet for some reason these problems
seem to be overlooked. Like usual, the U.S.
government is only thinking about the bene
fits for our nation.
What about struggling foreign economies?
What if other countries start enforcing huge
tariffs on our products? How are we going to
feel then? This whole notion could seriously
derail trade talks in the future.
Bush may be trying to gain support for
fast-track legislation and increase his
friends in steel-producing states, but he
has forgotten the vast majority who enjoy
cheap steel. If countries want to practically
give us their products, why are we refus
ing? The benefits definitely exceed the
costs. After all, the whole idea of capital
ism is survival of the fittest, right? Tariffs
subvert this power of the invisible hand to
guide production and actually keep ineffi
cient producers in business. We live in
cruel times, but the steel industry just
needs to face the facts — if you can’t cut it,
you get cut — and stop this crying-to-Dad
dy-Bush nonsense.
E-mail columnist Tara Debenham at
taradebenham@dailyemerald.com. Her opinions
do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald.
Concert catastrophe was not Cultural Forum's fault
m writing this in response to an
editorial last Friday about the
Nelly show (“Concertgoersget
JLbum rap when artist pulls no
show,"ODE,02/28). lama University
alumnus and was a coordinator with
the UO Cu Itural Forum for two years.
I was an event promoter in the
Cultural Forum from 1999 to 2001
and worked with one of the largest
concert promoters in the North
west after graduation. I read the ed
itorial in the Emerald last week,
and while I found the editorial
board’s dissatisfaction with the
show to be valid, it really should do
its homework before making nega
tive claims about something it real
ly did not understand.
Fromtimetotime.theCulturalFo
rum is approached by an outside pro
moter to bring usually a large-name
act to campus with no financial risk
on behalf of the University. This is ob
viously an enticing situation when
theCF is budgeted approximately
$70,000 per year and expected to
bring entertainment to campus and
the community, provide late-night
programming and book/produce the
Folk Festival and the Oregon Grind,
and is often looked down upon when
it doesn’t bring large-name acts to the
community.
The editorial board found the
Cultural Forum guilty of a horribly
run production, when in reality it
had nothing to do with it. TheCF
was simply contracted out to pro
vide on-campus coordination and
Guest Commentary
Ian
Clayman
act as a liaison between the promot
er, Advantage Mortgage, the Univer
sity and security—which like the
editorial board, I agree was there in
abundance, but was required by the
University administration.
On the matter of a performer not
showing, it is my pseudo-profes
sional opinion that this was a case
of a promoter misleading an audi
ence. Again, I stress this is only my
opinion, but I strongly feel that
when the show appeared that it
was not selling, Advantage Mort
gage, behind closed doors, made
the decision to pull the plug on pe
rusing the Ice-T option, but not tell
the audience, because, hey, you
saw how many people were there.
They needed the money.
I want the editorial board to
know that I am not writing to it to
start an argument, but I believe that
its negative feelings, although
valid, were not directed at the ap
propriate people. The outside pro
moter for this event held the con
tracts with the acts, determined the
ticket prices, withheld the info
about Ice-T not coming and regu
lated the set times.
For decades now, the CF has
brought literally thousands of suc
cessful acts to Eugene, and from
time to time, it gets misled. It hap
pens often in the insecure, finan
cially screwed-up music industry.
You will see excellent big names
with professional productions in
the future, like you did in the past.
By the way, Dylan and Paul Si
mon did not play here in 1998. It
was Dylan, Van Morrison, and Lu
cinda Williams. It was a great show
indeed, but again with an outside
promoter, Double-Tee of Portland,
and the CF did what limited pro
duction was required, collected its
money, then used it to bring other
great acts to campus that year.
Ian dayman, a 2001 graduate, was the
performing arts coordinator for the UO
Cultural Forum for two years.
Roll Results:
Every week, the Emerald prints the results of our
online poll and the poll question for next week.
The poll can be accessed from the main page
of our Web site, www.dailyemerald.com. We
encourage you to send us feedback about the
poll questions and results.
Last week’s poll question: Who or what is this
week’s talk of the town?
Results: 87 total votes
■ Men’s basketball Pacific-10 championship
—56.3 percent, or 49 votes
■ Alcohol sales on Sundays
—13.8 percent, or 12 votes
■ David Horowitz’s anti-reparations speech
—4.6 percent, or 4 votes
■ Ralph Nader’s environmental law keynote speech
— 11.5 percent, or 10 votes
■ Don’t know—3.4 percent, or 3 votes
■ Don’t care — 10.3 percent, or 9 votes
This week’s poll question: How far will the Oregon
men’s basketball team go in the NCAA Tournament?
The choices:
■ 1st Round
■ 2nd Round
■ Sweet 16
■ Elite Eight
■ Final Four
■ Don’t care
Welcome to the land of forgotten purpose
I Know we, as citizens ot the United
States, have trouble defining our
culture. What I did not realize is
how many might have forgotten
where our nation came from. Perhaps
with public education the way it has to
be today, some never learned the truth to
begin with. This was never more appar
ent than when guest commentator Scott
Britt decided to write the Emerald with
his personal, and rather inaccurate, defi
nition of American culture ("Bush’s cru
sade is anti-American," ODE, 02/20).
To say I was upset when I read his mis
informed attack on our president is an
extreme understatement. The title of his
article, “Bush’s crusade is anti-Ameri
can," still makes me shake my head in
disbelief— it was Britt's backlash against
the leader of our country that was anti
American. He says Bush and his party
"want to change the culture into a more
Christian" one. He needs to remember
that our nation began with believers of
the Bible, so our President is not initiat
ing a change, but reflecting the influence
of true American roots.
Yes, I realize some of you are reading
this and asking, “But I thought our coun
try was fo.unded.on freedom of religion, so
Guest Commentary
Tara
Carleton
how can this person tell me it was Chris
tianity that initiated the land of the free?”
Please allow me to explain. Pilgrims and
Puritans did not risk their lives to come to
this land and later fight the Revolutionary
War with their mother country Britain
over some tea. Taxes were not really the
point. Reformation was.
Christians fled to this new land to
practice Christianity without fear of
death for not believing what others told
them to. To ensure that no one would
feel the same threat that our forefathers
did, they proclaimed that citizens of the
United States would be free to practice
any religion. The war we are fighting
now is to preserve those same rights, not
destroy them.
Right now, we have a president in office
who is willing to stand up for what our
forefathers believed in and isn’t afraid to
proclaim his beliefs. Unfortunately, those
like Britt can't see the sense in having a
Christian man be the leader of a nation
founded on the principles of Christian
faith. Some people are happier defining
our nation’s culture as “American heathen
culture,” as Britt called it.
President Bush is not reinventing the
wheel here. The Constitution we live by
was signed by men who were Christian
and those who were not still believed
this nation should be founded on the
same principles that the Bible sets forth.
We have also had many, many Christian
presidents. Many would be devastated
today to see the attitudes of some of the
nation’s extreme anti-Americans ignor
ing the Bible and defending abortion and
drug use.
George Washington said, “It is impossi
ble to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible.” He is supported by
others, including John Adams, Thomas
Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Abraham
Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow
Wilson and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisen
hower said, “The recognition of the
supreme being is the first, the most basic,
expression of Americanism. Without God,
there could be no American form of gov
ernment, nor American way of life.”
Tara Carleton is a senior architecture major.