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
Friday, April 11,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Page Assistant:
Salena De La Cruz
Violent ‘peace’
protesters hurt
movement
Guest commentary
Perennial angry-at-society-guy Craig Rosebraugh (who ap
parently has never met a news camera he wouldn’t strike a
pose for) recently challenged Portland Mercury readers to
ask themselves, “Has there been a successful social or polit
ical movement in this country where violence did not in
deed play at least some crucial part?”
Let’s look at Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights movement
of the 1960s. Certainly this country has a long way to go in
addressing socioeconomic inequality that African Ameri
cans continue to face in staggering numbers. But it’s ludi
crous to argue that blacks, especially those in the south, are
not better off now than before King’s effort.
Although King’s nonviolent methods of civil disobedience
played the major role in swaying public opinion, acts of vio
lence were indeed crucial to this change.
Rosebraugh says militia groups like the Black Panthers
forced The Man to deal with King’s nonviolent crowd. Fun
ny that Rosebraugh should invoke Malcolm X in his at
tempts to market violence, because he fails to mention that
Malcolm X’s trip to Africa and Mecca deeply changed the re
ligious man. He started to tone down the violent rhetoric
and adopt methods that would incorporate more diverse
groups to the cause. If you like conspiracy theories, The
Man killed Malcolm after his message softened and actually
became more dangerous.
No, Malcolm X wasn’t the significant violent element of
the civil rights movement. Racist whites were.
When white KKK members resorted to fire-bombing to in
timidate southern black church-goers and ended up killing
young girls in Sunday school, public opinion began to
change. When crazy white racists resorted to violence and
killed three civil rights workers, public opinion began to
change. When rabid white police resorted to violence and be
gan beating peaceful marchers, unleashing the dogs on them
and spraying them with water cannons, public opinion began
to change. In fact, JFK made a federal case out of it.
And when the anti-war anarchists, ELF or any other vio
lence-spouting groups finally accidentally injure or kill
someone, they, too, will have dramatically shifted public
opinion against themselves and their cause.
But perhaps more important and dangerous for the rest of
us: People prone to violence provide even more justification
for the current trend in this country to ignore civil liberties
and stifle dissent. They may feel good for a few moments,
but violent and destructive acts are not the most wise path
to a better world.
Pat Malach lives in Hillsboro.
MIND IF WE CRASH HERE
FOR A WHILE?
* I
Peter Utsey Emerald
Use manners when voicing viewpoints
Guest commentary
I was really pleased to see Salena De
La Cruz’s column, “Majority Sup
port”(ODE, Mar. 31). After having par
ticipated in the “Support Our Troops”
rally the previous Saturday, I was very
curious as to what type of coverage
would be in the Emerald.
Marching down the streets of Eugene
was not something I had previously done,
and I looked forward to it with excitement
and a bit of fear; excitement because I was
supporting something I really believed in,
and fear because I didn’t want any ugly
confrontations with those opposite my
views. (Call me a wimp, but I like every
one to get along and just agree to disagree
in a respectful and kind manner).
I didn’t personally have any con
frontations, but I did observe a couple of
instances that could have turned into
confrontations had anyone decided to
choose that path. The first was shortly af
ter we started marching, a young woman
on the sidewalk began shouting obsceni
ties at us and proclaiming in a loud and
angry voice, “You’re all a bunch of (exple
tive) terrorists!” The venom and bitter
ness she lashed out with was shocking
and so unexpected.
Most of us who heard her just
laughed and commented how sad we
were for her. One mom to the side of
my husband and me retorted back with
“My son would give his life for you!”
She was carrying an 8x10 picture of
him in his military uniform. I don’t re
member the young woman responding
to the comment; she was too angry to
hear it, I suppose.
The second incident was at the Federal
Building by a young man who was greatly
offended by the singing of the “Star Span
gled Banner.” He, too, used the same lan
guage as the young woman, letting us all
know he didn’t have to listen to that “(ex
pletive) song.” (Is there a required class
at the University to learn special “peace”
protesters language?) He ran through the
throng of people and nearly knocked
over a man standing not far from my hus
band and me. He probably didn’t notice;
he was too angry to see, I suppose.
I haven’t been 20-something for a long
time, so I may be totally out of touch with
what goes on in the heads of that age
group, but I don’t think so. I tend to want
to believe the best about people and give
them the benefit of the doubt.
Because of those beliefs, I’ll assume the
two young protesters were just having a
bad day and momentarily forgot the
manners they were taught: to speak re
spectfully and courteously to people
when they disagree.
Jacqueline McDonald lives in Eugene.
Letters to the editor
Troop support does not
extend to hostilities
I am told to “Support our Troops” now that
war has begun. I say, it all depends on what you
mean. I want our troops out of harm’s way. I
support them in their right to choose the mili
tary, their feeling that they are doing their patri
otic duty and in their thinking that they are do
ing good. But I don’t support them for what, at
the president’s orders, they are doing in Iraq.
I oppose their hostile entering of a country
without international support. I don’t support
them in their killing of Iraqis, both soldiers and
innocent civilians. And I oppose them in their
inevitable destroying of at least some infra
structure and resources that will lead to mis
eries in the future. Please don’t look at me
strangely if I can’t unequivocally agree that
“But, of course, all citizens can and should sup
port our troops.” Or at least that’s what any
regular person would say.
Neil Wollman
senior fellow
Peace Studies Institute
Jones death coverage
sensitive, compassionate
I am very moved by the Emerald’s follow
up stories about the events surrounding the
tragic death of Eric Dylan Jones. It is impor
tant that we reflect and learn from our ac
tions to avoid unnecessary harm against oth
ers. The Emerald’s coverage shows a
profound sensitivity, maturity and compas
sion in being able to evaluate oneself in a crit
ical and constructive manner, as hard as it
may be. I truly hope that Mike Bellotti and
the Eugene Police Department have the
courage to accept the same challenge.
Bryan Moore
Spanish instructor
Women deserve accurate
abortion information
Tuesday’s Emerald supplied an advertising
supplement funded by an anti-choice faction.
This 12-page insert attempted to sway women
in rejecting the possibility of abortion through
false statistics and scare tactics.
According to one article in the supple
ment, abortion leads to breast cancer. How
ever, the National Cancer Institute stated in
their 2003 report that “the strongest statisti
cal evidence shows no link between abortion
and breast cancer.” Additionally, a 2000
study published in Epidemiology affirmed
that there is no risk of breast cancer among
women who have chosen abortion, nor does
cancer risk increase with a larger number of
reported induced abortions.
I strongly believe that information should
be provided to females about the strengths
and weaknesses of abortion techniques.
However, I feel that it is unjust to provide fal
sified material to women in order to sway
their opinions.
Sarah A. Koski
sophomore
political science and international studies
HLA Pro Life should help with
childcare, housing costs
On April 2, a group called HLA Pro Life
added a ‘special’ advertising section to the
Emerald in a openly biased, subversively reli
gious manner.
While it is true that abortion has touched
many lives, it has helped many people who
would not have otherwise been able to prop
erly care for a child. Many of these same peo
ple would seek alternative venues to have
abortions, possibly to the detriment of the
mother as well as the child. Why doesn’t HLA
Pro Life spend money helping single parents
so that they can afford to have these children
instead of aborting them? What a novel idea
for the religious right! Or, if targeting students
anyway, help subsidize childcare and housing
for student-parents?
Maybe more students would consider hav
ing children instead of aborting them, and HLA
can provide positive reinforcement for making
what they believe is a ‘right’ decision. Instead, I
am saddened for those that have to encounter
this belittling, shame inducing rhetoric of fear
and rekindle the pain of their decision.
By chastising those would-be mothers with
worthless propaganda, HLA only succeeds in
injuring everyone’s spirit. I, for one, say shame
on HLA.
Andrew Ettinger
senior
computer sciences