Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
. Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Friday, May 3,2002
Yesteryear’s Editorial
Reagan
shouldn’t veto
long-awaited
trade bill
In August 1988, Congress passed
and President Ronald Reagan
signed the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 into
law. The act is a successor to the bill
mentioned in this editorial, which
was vetoed by the
months before the
University
of Oregon
125th
ANNIVERSARY
Originally
published on
May 3,1988
president only two
act was signed
into law. Howev
er, the provision
involving plant
closings and
large-scale layoffs
was removed
from the trade
law and passed
separately.
It was three
- years m tne mak
ing and cleared both the House and
Senate, but the new federal trade
bill will likely face a presidential
veto.
Last week’s 63-36 vote in the Senate
failed to muster the two-thirds majori
ty vote needed to override a veto, and
now Senate Democrats are scrambling
for a substitute plan that would be fa
vored by Reagan.
Unfortunately, the scrambling is un
necessary.
The bill empowers the president to
halt any acquisition, merger or
takeover of an American firm by a for
eign company if that action would
jeopardize national security.
These highlights would serve to
give the president more power. Yet,
Reagan is expected to veto the bill on
the premise of one provision that
would require all but the smallest
business to give employees a 60-day
notice of plant closings and large-scale
layoffs.
Obviously, Reagan’s long years in
office have left him either pompous or
senseless — perhaps both.
Not only do employees deserve a
60-day notice of plant closings or
large-scale layoffs, but the trade bill’s
other provisions would toughen U.S.
retaliation against unfair trading prac
tices of other countries.
The bill, long in the making and
long overdue, would cut deeply into
America’s enormous trade deficit.
It would be fortunate if Reagan were
capable of overlooking his personal
differences with the 60-day provision
and make a small concession on a bill
that actually gives the president a lot
of power.
This editorial was taken from the May 3,1988,
edition of the Oregon Daily Emerald.
Letters to the Editor and
Guest Commentaries Policy
Utters to the editor and guest commentaries are
encouraged. Letters are limited to 260words and
guest commentaries to 560 words.
Please include contact information. The Emerald
reserves the right to edit
for space, grammar and style.
Israel desires peace, negotiation
It seems that much of the population
is unfamiliar with the history of the
Israeli-Arab conflict, as is evident by
Matthew Nelson’s letter to the editor (
“Backing Israel is backing oppression,”
ODE, April 4). Nelson refers to Israel as
“oppressors” who “overtake Palestinian
land” and “terrorize innocent civilians.”
Let’s take a closer look at these accusa
tions.
The territories under dispute were cap
tured by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967.
In this defensive war, the Jewish State effec
tively fought off the surrounding Arab
States, who were led by former Egyptian
President Gamal Nasser’s call for Arabs to
“throw the Jews into the sea.” Ever since
the Six-Day War, Israel has been willing to
return the land captured in exchange for
peace; in fact, Israel returned 91 percent of
that land (the entire Sinai Peninsula) to
Egypt in 1979 in exchange for peace. Israel
also dismantled all of the settlements in the
Sinai as part of that agreement.
During the past 35 years, Israel has made
numerous attempts to fashion similar peace
treaties with Syria regarding the Golan
Heights and the Palestinians regarding the
r
Guest Commentary
Matthew
Peltz
West Bank and Gaza. The Oslo Accords in
1993 were an attempt to begin this process
with the Palestinians. As part of this plan,
Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat was
supposed to denounce terrorism and begin
the establishment of a Palestinian State. In
stead of using this opportunity to teach
peace and change the attitude of his people,
Arafat used the money and arms he re
ceived to continue promoting terrorism,
anti-Semitism and the “rewards” of suicide
bombing.
Nevertheless, Israel attempted to finalize
this plan in the summer of 2000 at Camp
David II and again at Taba in 2001, which
would have given the Palestinians a state
side-by-side with Israel. The proposed state
included 97 percent of the West Bank and
all of Gaza, an almost identical offer to the
one floated by Saudi Arabian Prince Abdul
lah at the recent Arab League Summit.
Arafat refused this offer without presenting
a counter-offer and then effectively ended
the talks by insisting on the “right of return”
of 4 million-plus Palestinians to Israel prop
er, which would destroy the national identi
ty of the Jewish state. Upon his return to Is
rael, he launched a campaign of terror
against the people of Israel which continues
to this day.
Israel, on the other hand, does not target
innocent civilians; rather, they try to pro
tect innocent civilians from Arafat’s suicide
bombers. I’d hardly call this “oppression”
or “terrorism.” Israel has stated clearly
many times that it is willing to accept a
ceasefire, enter negotiations and ultimately
try to reach an equitable agreement with
the Palestinians, yet every time they at
tempt to do so, they are met with more ter
ror attacks.
It is a shame for the Palestinians who
want peace that their leader’s politics are
based on terrorism rather than negotiation.
When Arafat’s own government-controlled
TV station calls for Palestinians to “slaugh
ter the Jews,” it is tough to agree with Nel
son’s depiction of the Israelis as terrorists.
Matthew Peltz is a junior sociology major.
Steve SackU-Wire
%m3
' i-j
mmm
igsg^sfer.
, Jfc ’ '*>*2*&T\*r’J??;i«XT
Letter to the editor
Abercrombie shirts
found insulting, offensive
Recently, I was informed about a new line
of T-shirt designs that Abercrombie & Fitch
created for this season. They featured im
ages of Asian cartoon characters and sayings
such as “eat in or wok out,” or “two wongs
make it white.”
As a white student here and as Abercrom
bie & Fitch’s target market, I am completely
outraged that these designs were not only
considered, but actually chosen and market
ed. These T-shirts depict Asian Americans
in a stereotypical, racist way. The characters
come from a time in American history when
anti-Asian sentiment was at an obscene
high.
Images like these were used to create hys
teria and propaganda about an “Asian” in
vasion and the threat of “yellow peril.” This
hysteria placed many people and communi
ties in danger, barred them from obtaining
jobs, housing and equal protection under the
law. This is an important and shameful part
of America’s past, and for Abercrombie &
Fitch to find it a clever way to sell shirts or
market their company is insulting and of
fensive. • - -V
I cannot and will not support a company
that finds racist images a cool thing to put on
shirts. Abercrombie & Fitch should be
ashamed of utilizing their T-shirts as a forum
to incite racist, bigoted attitudes just to make
a buck.
These images do not belong on T-shirts;
they are meant to be a part of history classes
and discussions, so that we may learn from
our racist past, to avoid those same choices
in the future.
Nilda Brooklyn
ASUO President
junior, ethnic studies and
planning, public policy & management