Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Monday, March 3,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor:
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editor
Pat Payne
Editorial
Faculty opposed
to war should join
others to strike
against Iraq war
On Friday, the University Assembly failed in its attempt
to pass an official anti-war resolution, as the 1,069 voting
members necessary for a quorum never materialized.
We wonder why the turnout for the meeting was so
low. Gould it be that the great majority of assembly mem
bers agreed with University President Dave Frohnmay
er’s assessment that the University had no place in opin
ing on such an issue? Or has someone in Johnson Hall
brought subtle pressure to bear on the faculty by stating
that belts across the state are tightening and that “playing
ball” may be the best way to secure funding for depart
ments and projects?
Perhaps 538 attending members was indeed a success,
as supporters claimed. After all, it was a Friday afternoon,
and the meeting was neither a sporting event nor an en
tertainment performance.
We have a suggestion for those professors opposed to
this war who want to make a personal statement that is
n’t speaking for the University as a whole: Join the na
tionwide movement calling for a general strike on
Wednesday. It’s somewhat baffling that at the University,
which has a reputation for being progressive, there hasn’t
been any general chorus to join the strike. OSU students
are calling for a strike, and the OSU faculty already
passed an anti-war resolution.
Corvallis may be ahead of us on this front, but profes
sors, if you’re against the war, cancel classes and call in
“sick of war” on Wednesday.
Legislators should
consider poor when
installing \sin tax’
Once again, Oregon is responding to fallout from the
budget meltdown and the failure of Measure 28, this time
in a form that’s sure to hit some Eugenians right in the
mouth — almost literally.
The Legislature is right now debating whether to sub
stantially increase the taxes on wine and beer. Beer taxes
would rise more than seven times from less than a penny
to seven cents a bottle, while wine would be taxed at
more than a quarter per bottle. The revenues — propo
nents claim it would raise #100 million — would be ear
marked for health services in danger of being slashed.
We’re against this tax, and not just because college stu
dents have a propensity to tipple.
We certainly can’t fault the Legislature for trying to
save worthwhile services like mental health treatment,
drug addiction treatment and the Medically Needy pro
gram. But did the legislators behind this idea (including
Springfield Sen. Bill Morrisette) stop to consider that it’s
yet another regressive tax that will fall most heavily on
the people who can least afford to pay?
The paycheck of a poor worker cannot as readily ab
sorb a 7.5 cent tax on beer as the wallet of a better-off
person can afford the 28.4 cents on wine. Helping the
medically needy on the backs of the economically needy
isn’t wise public policy.
Rather than install another regressive “sin tax” to
dig Oregon out of the economic hole, we have a few
other ideas, and although we’ve said them before, they
could still help the situation. Try a gross receipts tax,
try increasing business taxes, try a two-tiered sales tax
(low rate for inexpensive products, higher rate for ex
pensive products).
Raising taxes isn’t politically pretty, no matter what
segment of the population is being hit. But Oregon needs
to swallow hard and follow the lead of other states, such
as Tennessee last summer, in making structural change.
Regressive patchwork funding will not fix the state’s tax
mess — we need a comprehensive solution.
Pay one group, pay all
I demand what belongs to me! I demand
the land the U.S. Government took from
Mexico all those years ago! I demand repa
rations for my ancestors! In short, I de
mand what does not belong to me.
I find it grievous that black people are
demanding reparations for acts that
were not committed against them, but
their ancestors. I
have no problem
whatsoever for the
government paying
reparations to the
actual victims. But
I’ve got a big prob
lem giving repara
tions to their great,
great, great, great
(you get my point)
grandchildren.
If the govern
Salena
DeLaCruz
Say it loud
ment is going to
give reparations to them, why not every
other race that has been victimized over
the years? Yes, they may have been
promised “a mule and forty acres” to be
gin their lives as “free men,” but it was
n’t really them. It was their ancestors.
Ancestors long dead. Granted, some may
be as recent as 100 years ago, but they’re
gone nonetheless.
When David Horowitz tried to place an
ad called “Ten Reasons Why Reparations
for Slavery is a Bad Idea — and Racist
Too” in 52 college newspapers, only 27
ran the ad. The newspapers that did were
criticized because the ad was said to be
racist. Though I may not agree with a lot
of what Horowitz has to say, I tend to
agree with his reasoning behind this ad.
I am in no way racist, but his justifica
tions make sense.
According to Horowitz’s ad, there is no
single group clearly responsible for the
crime of slavery. Black Africans and Arabs
were in part responsible for enslaving the
ancestors of today’s black Americans.
There were 3,000 black slave owners in
the antebellum United States. Why are the
ancestors of these people are not paying
reparations? I didn’t own a slave nor did
my family. Then why should I have to pay
a fine for something I had no part in?
Horowitz’s second point is that there is
no one group that benefited exclusively
I DEMAND REFUTATIONS FOR SLAVERYf
NOT UNTIL. X GET MY
CALIFORNIA BACK.
\
YOUR CAUFDRNIA-?!!
\
NATIVE
AMERICAN
Peter Utsey Emerald
from its fruits. I agree — several races
benefited from using slave labor, and that
includes black Americans. Doesn’t that
mean they should be paying as well?
What about the Union soldiers who
died during the Civil War trying to free
these slaves? Do the descendants of
these people deserve reparations?
The reparations payments made to
Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japan
ese Americans and victims of syphilis ex
periments in Tuskegee were to the direct
victims of the injury, or their immediate
families. The United States should not
have to pay reparations to people who
are not immediate family or victims
themselves of slavery.
When President Bill Clinton was in of
fice, he apologized to Hawaiians for the
overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani. Is there
going to be a prerequisite for all presi
dents to apologize for some act done to
some culture or race long dead?
Here’s a thought: Why doesn’t our cur
rent president just apologize in one big
hoorah? He could say, “I apologize for
any wrongdoings that may have been
done to persons or their races during the
interim from the time the world began to
now.” I mean, geez, we might as well get
it all out of the way.
Slavery was hideous, yes, but there
were and are many other people
wronged throughout the world. In
many African countries, clitoral castra
tion is still practiced. What about dur
ing World War I and World War II?
What about the people killed?
Do you see what I am saying? If we
make reparations for one group what’s
to stop, ummm, let’s say, Mexicans from
requesting their part of Mexico annexed
into the United States in 1848? Stop
and think: When will the past remain in
the past, and people instead will look to
the future?
We need to make things better now
and not continuously reopen yesterday’s
wounds. But most importantly, people
need to stop demanding money for atroc
ities that didn’t happen directly to them.
It doesn’t belong to you.
Contact the columnist
atsalenadelacruz@dailyemerald.com.
Her views do not necessarily represent
those of the Emerald.
Letter to the editor
Bush rhetoric hides
oily motivations
It has been reported that former
President Dwight Eisenhower was
shocked to learn that half of all Ameri
cans are of below average intelligence. In
those days, presidents expected to en
gage the public in rational discourse. To
day, presidents lie quite freely, hoping
that the law of averages will keep enough
people in the dark.
President George W. Bush is a case in
point. His coming war against Iraq is
r
neither about terrorism nor about
weapons of mass destruction. It is about
oil, and it was planned long before Sept.
11, 2001. In an astonishingly effective
campaign, Bush has managed to mislead
and confuse a great many Americans
about this simple fact.
It is interesting to compare the pen
nings of war supporters, for example
Salena De La Cruz’s comments in the
Emerald (“Time for action against Iraq,”
ODE, Feb. 17), or Sean Walston’s letter
(“Column sheds light on Iraq threat,”
ODE, Feb. 21). Such statements are usu
ally quite emotional and invariably ex
press faith in the Bush administration.
Supporters rarely doubt the validity of
the administration’s evidence, such as
that presented by Cohn Powell during his
pathetic performance before the United
Nations, nor do they wonder why most.
Informed people in the world now think
that Bush, rather than Saddam Hussein,
is the more serious problem.
Saddam Hussein is indeed an evil man,
but there are much worse, and he was
once even our “friend.” His worst mistake
was underestimating our lust for his oil.
What will we do when Iraqi oil runs out?
Jim Remington
professor
physics
Online poll
'VIOUS
Last week: How will you pay for the tuition
surcharge?
'IX-yi/. ;
Results: 59 total votes
Pick up a part-time job — 8.5 percent, or 5 votes
' •• s/'sK*' '' * ' ' '/V'" ' '
Wait for financial aid -t20.3 percent, or 12 votes
fillip
A
—~
’« ' '<,