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
Tuesday, July 30,2002
Editor in chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing editor:
Jenni Schultz
Letters to the editor
Eugene has more bookstores
I am pleased that the Oregon Daily
Emerald had a special books edition
(July 26), but I am disappointed that
your insert and articles on local stores
did not include two downtown book
stores, Emerald City Fine Books and J.
Michael’s books. Both our businesses
are working toward the revitalization
of Downtown Eugene.
Our store, Emerald City Fine Books,
has 40,000 titles, of which more than
31,000 are available for sale online.
Beyond this, we have perhaps the
finest stock of antiquarian books south
of Portland.
My father, who runs the business on
a day-to-day basis, is a founding editor
of Firsts Magazine, widely recognized
as the best periodical resource for book
collectors. He has nearly 40 years of ex
perience in the antiquarian book trade.
We are also proud of our knowledge
able staff, who are deeply committed to
the book trade.
Marc Weinstein
proprietor
Emerald City Fine Books
Women must make adjustments
Although Meghann Farnsworth as
serts that “Women face more chal
lenges when balancing career, family”
(ODE, July 23), I believe it is a societal
challenge. We can meet the challenges
by accepting children’s presence in
our society.
Women need not sacrifice career or
family but must make adjustments if
they want to do them concurrently. Bi
ology determines that she (not he)
must have her family in the first half of
her life expectancy.
The studies that show that children
do better when they are constantly
mothered for the first nine months of
life should not be cause for anxiety.
They present a challenge for us to
make workplaces friendlier to women
with offspring who choose or need to
work while their children are young.
While the needs of women and men
may have changed in recent history,
the needs of babies and children
haven’t. Having more money for ade
quate child care does nothing to further
the fulfillment of a child. It is more im
portant to children in their infancy to
have their mothers present, because
mothers are the ones who are biologi
cally equipped for the nurturing and
nutrition that breast-feeding provides
the infant for optimum growth and de
velopment.
It is a slap in the face to women who
choose full time mothering to think
they must have a paying career to be
fulfilled. Men who are supportive of
the mother who chooses to go with her
biology — to be constantly available in
their child’s early years — should be
respected and acknowledged for the
sacrifices they make.
Beth Mali
Creswell
Letters to the editor
coi
commentaries are encouraged, letters are
limited to 250 words and guest
include contact Information, The Emerald
reserves the right to edit
!il|i
Spam e-mails part fools, money
Some days, it pays to be paranoid. Al
ways believing what you read could
be trouble. And these days, fools and
their money can be parted at the speed of
thought.
A few days ago, I was checking my e-mail,
when I got a message from someone named
“Dr. Ego Bia” marked “Urgent and Confi
dential.” Even though I don’t fall for any
spams, I love opening them up just to laugh
at the ludicrous pitches they often contain.
This, however, was no typical spam trying
to lure me to
www.hotslutswithdonkeys.com or the in
evitable credit card pitch.
Nope. The alleged “Dr. Bia” was spinning
a tale about how he and other members of a
Nigerian government oil company had
skimmed money off their contracts to the
tune of some $20 million. If only I would
pay some transfer fees and a bribe or two,
then come to Nigeria and give them my
bank account number, they’d transfer the
money to the United States. I would be able
to keep a large percent of the ill-gotten swag
for myself.
Right. In reality, that e-mail was a solicita
tion for the so-called “Nigerian” or “419”
scam, and it is, according to the Virginia
based 419 Coalition, the third-to-fifth-largest
industry in Nigeria. It’s an old scam — it
stems from a ’20s con called “the Spanish
prisoner” (“Oh, dear chap ... my brother, a
wealthy playboy, was unjustly imprisoned
in Spain ... if you will be so kind as to help
pay for his release, he would reward you
ever so handsomely”).
It’s odd to think that people would fall for
this scheme, but they have. Fallen for it to
the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars
each year, according to the Secret Service.
It’s a reason to be wary of anything promis
ing “quick riches” on the Internet. Just re
member this mantra: If it looks too good to
be true, it is.
In the same vein of divorcing fools from
their money is the old “chain letter” dodge.
I’m sure you’ve gotten an e-mail from some
one telling you of the 15-year-old whose
mother found an ungodly sum of money in
his closet. How did he get it? Yeah, I was
thinking “selling drugs” too.
But no. He’s in on a chain letter. He sends
Guest Commentary
Pat
Payne
five dollars through the mail to a number of
total strangers on an e-mail list, and then
puts his own name on and sends the e-mail
off to others. He then waits and watches the
money roll in.
And it’s not illegal, the missive
tells us, because when people
send him money, he
gives them info on
how to make
money
effortlessly
(in a breath:
Make yer
own damn
chain let
ter). It’s a
service, not
a scheme,
right?
Wrong. It’s the
granddaddy of frauds,
and it runs almost the
same as when Charles
Ponzi created it back in
the '20s. In a nut
shell, you’re giving
your money to
strangers with the
hopes that the next,
larger, levels of the pyra
mid will give you fabulous
wealth. Yes, some people get
wealthy — but only at the very
apex of the pyramid (the scammer
himself).
And, yes, even if they’re selling “re
ports,” “money-making opportunities” or
even electronic codes to a so-called “mon
ey-making program,” according to the U.S.
Postal Service, it’s still a violation of the
Postal Lottery Statute — U.S. Code, Title
18, Section 1302.
So, to hammer home the lesson, if it
looks too good to be true, run away as fast
as you can.
And if you get an e-mail saying Bill Gates
will give you $ 1,000 for forwarding an e-mail,
sympathy
from me — I
forwarded the
damn thing, and I’ve
yet to see my grand from
Geekzilla.
Pat Payne is a freelance columnist. His opinions
do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
Students have unequal college access
As a University student, I found the
July 23 front-page articles (“Students
face increased tuition, per-term fees,”
“Oregon universities seek more freedom,
flexibility from OUS,” ODE) most disturb
ing. First I read that we are getting increased
fees — an additional $53 per term, per stu
dent — making the University the most ex
pensive in the state.
But what was really shocking was the arti
cle about the state university presidents re
questing more autonomy from the Oregon
University System. They want to eliminate
spending limits on private university funds
and students’ ability to appeal to the state to
amend university policy.
Currently, state taxes account for only
about 18 percent of the University budget.
Your editorial (“UO officials should rethink
budget fixes,” ODE, July 23) states that, ac
cording to The Oregonian, a mere 27 percent
of Oregon’s state tax funds come out of the
multi-million-dollar pockets of corpora
tions, meaning the rest of us fork out 73 per
cent of state taxes.
I echo your editorial’s demand that corpo
rations “need to pony up the bucks to make
higher education realistically possible for
the state’s students.”
However, that seems to be a utopian
dream. The trend has been the opposite for
most of the past century: The public’s share
Guest Commentary
Mason
Gummer
of the tax burden has increased, while that of
the corporate sector has decreased. A half
century ago, business taxes accounted for
about half of Oregon’s budget.
The Bush Administration used the post
Sept. 11 mood of “if you don’t support our
proposal, you are unpatriotic” to further this
trend, granting huge gifts to the wealthy sec
tors that control our government (is it a sur
prise to anybody that the richer you are, the
more political power you have?).
An upper-class tax cut was passed, and
the military budget was increased dramati
cally. Our military was already vastly superi
or to that of the rest of the world’s nations
combined, yet “defense” spending was in
creased to a whopping $1 billion per day\
Yet we can’t afford to subsidize the educa
tion of our people?
Hell, our government doesn’t even pro
vide us with basic health care. No wonder
America has the highest infant mortality rate
of any industrialized nation.
Of course, critics are quick to point out
that socialized education and health care
(which are practiced quite successfully in
many European countries) will cause taxes
to increase — which is irrelevant, since we
already have to pay exorbitant amounts for
those things anyway.
If we could persuade our government to
take some of our money out of the immense
ly over-funded military-industrial complex
and invest it in our well-being, then we
could have socialized higher education and
health care without higher taxes.
World population statisticians estimate it
would take 10 percent of the U.S. military
budget (approximately $37 billion) to sup
ply the world’s entire population with shel
ter, food and water. But I don’t expect to see
those kinds of changes.
America and the University will most
likely continue operating in the interest of
wealth and power, ignoring the people as
much as possible. There is plenty of money
for a new football stadium, but little to curb
tuition increases.
But have no fear, University President
Dave Frohnmayer and his fellow presidents
“promised to guarantee ... equal access to
higher education for every qualified Oregon
ian.” Since many Oregonians already lack
access to higher education, I’m assuming
that “qualified” is a euphemism for “only
those who can afford it. ”
Mason Gummer is a senior sociology major.