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
Tuesday, August 6,2002
Editor in chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing editor:
Jenni Schultz
Letters to the editor
Society should value
children more
As a mother of four, I must respond
to Meghann Farnsworth’s commen
tary (“Women face more challenges
when balancing career, family,” ODE,
July 23).
Farnsworth presents the problem of
balancing motherhood and career in a
very black and white way, as if there is
nothing between. While I agree with
most of her underlying message, I think
the solution is more complicated than
she presents.
Yes, men must be responsible for car
ing for children as well. I have been in
both types of relationships (where a
man does not share in child-rearing re
sponsibilities, and one where these are
shared equally). Not only is this sup
port important for the mom, but it is
also very important for the child — and
the dad.
Women, however, are the ones who
carry the babies and who lactate, and
naturally, often the ones who stay home
with a young child. What these women
really need is support from their em
ployers and the government. We live in
a country that does not value mothers
in general.
Yes, men need to participate in
child rearing, which I think they are
increasingly doing every generation.
But America needs to value mothers
and families. Women (or men) should
not be punished by their employers
for trying to raise healthy, well-adjust
ed children. Government and/or em
ployer funding should be better for
maternity and paternity programs for
new families.
Maybe what we really need is a
country that is a little less concerned
with the all-mighty dollar and more
concerned with its children.
Donna Ralstin-Lewis
graduate assistant
sociology
Don’t forget J. Michaels Books
As someone who has visited used
bookstores throughout the Willamette
Valley, I was amazed and rather horri
fied to see that your article on Eugene
bookstores (“Independent bookstores
thrive despite big chains,” ODE, July
25) did not even mention J. Michaels
Books. I believe it is the best bookstore
in Eugene — and perhaps in the North
west. This isn’t biased by the fact that I
once worked there; there is lots of ob
jective support.
The store offers the best of all worlds
— a wonderful mixture of used, re
maindered and selected new books.
The majority is used material — prima
rily good-quality reading copies, but in
cluding antiquarian materials for the
book lover to explore.
And the prices are very reasonable. I
suspect the greatest barrier to this store
being “discovered” is that, because it
presents quality books in a well-organ
ized setting, many people assume it is
expensive. Comparison shopping will
show this is a major misperception. Re
maindered titles have standard prices,
and the selection of remainders is won
derful. And a used book of comparable
quality and condition could cost you
more elsewhere.
It is difficult to summarize the many
excellent selections for the specialist.
But I have to say the visual arts selec
tion is truly outstanding. Perhaps one
third of the stock is related in some
way. Anyone with an interest in the vi
sual arts is missing out if they do not
know about this store.
J. Michaels deserves a whole article
to itself. I am curious how you could
omit such a phenomenal resource from
your listing.
Carlis Nixon
Eugene
Environmentalists know
what they’re doing
Liz VanLeeuwen’s vitriolic diatribe
against the forest management policies
of the “environmental extremists”
(“Tom Daschle should learn logical for
est management,” ODE, Aug. 1) would
be laughable if it were not for the likeli
hood that many people will accept it at
face value without realizing that it has
no basis in fact whatsoever.
The “environmental extremists”
have never been allowed to determine
forest management policy. For years,
environmentalists have been calling for
small controlled burns to reduce the
fuel load in forests. This policy would
reduce the number and magnitude of
the mega-fires that have been occur
ring. These mega-fires are actually the
result of misguided forest management
policies dictated by property owners.
What has happened is that naturally
occurring fires have been suppressed as
quickly as possible, instead of being al
lowed to run their course. This has al
lowed an unnatural amount of fuel load
to accumulate in our forests. These
mega-fires are, as VanLeeuwen points
out, “environmentally destructive,” but
a natural forest fire is not.
A natural forest fire does not destroy
all of the flora and fauna in the burn
area, nor does it destroy the soil struc
ture. If the forest management policies
of environmentalists had truly been fol
lowed, we would not be having such
extreme fires.
This lady is scary! I sure hope she
doesn’t get elected. Oh, by the way,
Daschle’s treason just goes to show you
that Democrats are only green when
they’re out of office.
Randy Sullivan
chemistry instructor
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries policy
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited to 250 words
and guest commentaries to 550 words. Please include contact information. The Emerald
reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style.
^rnmmm
One of the cover photos for the summer
getaways special (ODE, Aug. 1} incorrectly
identified Spencer Butte.
The Emerald regrets the error.
CLARIFICATION
The Emerald ran two stories in the summer
getaways special (Aug. 1) mentioning the
height of Spencer Butte. Sports editor Brad
Schmidt reported the height at 2,062 feet,.
which he found on the Qwest map in the
phone book.
Photo editor Adam Jones reported it at
2,054 feet,which he found on a guide
book map.;
According to the Eugene Parks & Open *
Space Division, which is the agency
responsible for administering the park,
Spencer Butte is 2,052 feet tail. ,
The Emerald regrets the confusion,
Fighting war on drugs
seems futile, harmful
Guest Commentary
Kari
Dequine
News coverage of the present state of af
fairs in Colombia may be overshadowed
(conveniently) by the Middle Eastern
conflicts, but it will soon be impossible to ig
nore. Words like Vietnam have even been men
tioned in comparison to the direction we are
heading with our involvement in Colombia.
The United States has obviously lost the war
on drugs. There is no argument against this. Our
war against cocaine in Colombia has proven not
only ineffective but also harmful.
Within our borders, cocaine consumption is
unfaltering, and the number of deaths caused by
cocaine abuse is higher than ever. Outside our
borders, the amounts of coca produced and co
caine processed are increasing.
So why do we continue to fight with the same
foolish tactics? Is it possible that we don’t actu
ally want to win the war? And if this is the case,
why are we really in Colombia?
The line between the war on drugs and the
war on terrorism in Colombia has been blurred
for quite some time. But with President George
W. Bush’s approval of a new counterterrorism
bill that includes $35 million in funding to
Colombia, that line has been crossed.
Millions have already been spent on weapons
and helicopters and military training, but all un
der the pretext of counternarcotics efforts. The
“war on drugs” made for a convenient cover, but
now we can go after what we really want. The
Bush Administration is enjoying the heroic role
of attacking all who threaten “democracy” and
our indulgent way of life, and Colombia threat
ens this for various reasons.
A major reason for our involvement is
indeed to fight terrorism. There are three
Colombian groups that are on the State Depart
ment’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.
The primary target is a leftist rebel group
known as FARC, the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia. There is also another left
ist guerilla group known as the National Liber
ation Army. But they are not powerful enough
to be of great concern.
The third group, however, raises more ques
tions. This group, called the United Self-De
fense Forces of Colombia, is a right-wing para
military militia who is responsible for most of
the human rights abuses and massacres that
have occurred in the Colombian civil war.
This group has a known (even by the United
States) connection to the Colombian govern
ment and military.
Corruption runs rampant in Colombian
government, but the United States doesn’t
seem to mind this particular alliance. We do,
after all, have the same enemy. But we certain
ly don’t have much to say about supporting
known terrorists.
We also care about Colombia for the same
reason we care about Iraq. Oil. It was oil in
Desert Storm, too, wasn’t it? We need it and
will do what it takes to ensure that we can
continue in our wasteful ways. That pesky
FARC group keeps bombing an important oil
line. How dare they!
Another reason we are in Colombia is because
of drugs, but not to rid the world of them, as we
claim. Everyone profits from drug money
— even the United States government.
In addition to direct revenue, pretending to
fight drugs creates countless jobs. The govern
ment would lose serious amounts of money if
cocaine was suddenly jiot such a big “problem,”
and not such a lucrative market... like, say, if it
were legalized.
The recent expansion of our involvement in
Colombian affairs is just the beginning of what
will be a long and gruesome struggle. There are
already U.S. troops and personnel deep in the
jungles of Colombia, and more soon to come.
Anti-American sentiment is growing among
the Colombians.
It is evident that the United States is no longer
just fighting drugs. It is also evident that we are
not very concerned about helping a socially and
economically devastated country. Instead we
are bringing in more death and destruction. We
are in Colombia to protect our own interests, but
President Bush underestimates FARC.
This war may indeed not be so different from
Vietnam.
Kari Dequine is a freelance columnist. Her opinions
do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
Steve Sack
BOTToM-oF -THe-tfiNTM-lNMiNG STHSTtH