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, May 16,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor:
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Page Assistant:
Salena De La Cruz
Wal-Mart gives
‘family friendly’
new meaning
The next time you walk down the magazine aisle
at one of Wal-Mart’s three stores in Eugene, don’t
expect to find the latest issue of Maxim. The na
tion’s largest retailer has pulled the occasionally
risqug men’s magazine, along with FHM and Stuff,
from its shelves.
Wal-Mart’s refusal to sell
the three magazines is the
latest strike in the Arkansas
based retailer’s continuing
campaign to make its shelves
safe for the easily offended.
For years, Wal-Mart has
pulled from the rack individ
ual magazine issues that it
felt conflicted with its family
friendly image.
As a private business, Wal
Mart has the right to decide
which products it will and will
not sell. Yet its dominance in the retail market
means that its decisions affect, to an alarming ex
tent, what Americans see and hear. This is espe
cially true in rural markets where Wal-Mart may be
the only game in town.
Censorial sales policies aren’t Wal-Mart’s only
problem. In December, a Portland jury found Wal
Mart guilty of forcing its employees to work unpaid
overtime. The lawsuit, brought by 400 Wal-Mart
workers employed by 18 separate stores in Oregon,
was the first of many similar lawsuits across the na
tion to reach trial.
Chuck
Slothower
Clocktower
hush
Wal-Mart workers may need that overtime pay.
They earn an average of less than $9 per hour, ac
cording to The New York Times. Not one of them be
longs to a union.
Wal-Mart’s union-free status may not be an
accident. The National Labor Relations Board has
accused Wal-Mart of improperly firing union sup
porters and interrogating workers about pro-union
activism.
wai-Mart nas revenues or billion, roughly
equal to the gross domestic product of Sweden,
and it employs 1.4 million Americans, a work
force greater than the population of Idaho. Ap
parently, its size hasn’t helped Wal-Mart treat
women equally. Six female Wal-Mart employees
have launched a sex discrimination lawsuit
against the company, accusing it of favoring men
in pay and promotions.
The company denies the allegations. The suit al
leges that managers told women, “God made Adam
first,” and “Men are here to make a career, and
women aren’t.”
Wal-Mart has also aggressively entered the political
arena. In 15 months spanning 2001-2002, Wal-Mart
donated more than $600,000 to political candidates,
according to the Federal Elections Commission.
Wal-Mart has lavished thousands of dollars on Pres
ident George W. Bush, Attorney General John
Ashcroft and the Republican National Committee.
Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith received $10,000 from
Wal-Mart last spring.
Some of the company’s favored politicians hold
abhorrent views. One of these men is Sen. Rick
Santorum, R-Pa., who recently landed in hot water
for making anti-gay remarks. Santorum has re
ceived $7,000 from Wal-Mart in a relationship last
ing five years.
Despite Wal-Mart’s ethically challenged record,
consumers flock to the chain’s 3,500 stores like Tex
ans flock to oil. I can’t say I blame them. The econo
my sucks, and Wal-Mart’s prices are far lower than
many of its competitors. I myself have dropped a few
dollars there.
But socially conscious consumers should ask
themselves whether Wal-Mart’s low prices justify sup
porting its pro-censorship, anti-union, anti-gay and
anti-women reputation.
Contact the columnist
atchuckslothower@dailyemerald.com. His opinions
do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
NO WAY ARE WE APPOINTING HIM. HE'S A FANATIC !
POLITICS!
I
Peter Utsey Emerald
Unthinking antagonism can hurt Jewish cause
Guest commentary
In some ways, the reality of the Holo
caust best can be addressed by non-Jews.
This is written with acceptance of the reali
ty of the Holocaust, and the guilt under
standably felt by many. I am not of Jewish
heritage, but never have I doubted the hor
ror and expansiveness of the Holocaust.
Unfortunately, as scholar Deborah Lip
stadt told a University audience in April,
there are those who try to cast doubt on the
Holocaust. I choose to ignore them. But
something I can’t ignore is how some who
know it to be incontrovertible fact wind up
raising doubts by their response to critics of
Israel.
My belief in the Holocaust is reinforced
by awareness, as a Christian, of how the
Christian church has fed demonization of
Jews over the centuries. That issue erupted
on the University campus some years ago
when I was among several who challenged
the Oregon Bach Festival for performing
Bach’s St. John Passion. The music was not
at issue, but some of the scriptural words
were because of their bigotry toward Jews.
To its credit, the festival scheduled public
discussion of the subject.
Martin Luther, through his words, la
beled himself the most visible anti-Judaic
figure in church history. I’m convinced
Hitler’s Holocaust could not have been pos
sible had German Lutherans and Catholics
not heard it propounded for centuries from
their sanctuaries. That is a terrible flaw
that the Church needs to address in an ef
fort to expurgate its writings of such un
Christian concepts.
Some Jews could encourage that impor
tant introspection within Christianity by
looking within themselves for signs of be
havior that feeds unthinking antagonism to
ward them among non-Jews. These include:
• Knee-jerk support for policies of a for
eign nation, Israel, when those policies vic
timize Palestinians, and are inconsistent
with the American view of justice, even if a
federal administration chooses to be a party
to the injustice.
• Equating criticism of Israel with anti
Judaism. Earlier this year, University Pro
fessor Doug Card was arbitrarily and wrong
ly accused in that way by the most
notorious self-appointed censor in the
American Jewish community, scholar and
New York Post columnist Daniel Pipes.
Some morally and intellectually unstable
Americans need only the Pipes-type behav
ior to justify their doubts about the Holo
caust. Pipes and his collaborators, even
some in Eugene who hound critics of Israel
with that label, need to be discredited by
the Jewish community.
As I left the Lipstadt talk, the darkness
outside was broken by a solemn sight and
sound: memorial candles in the EMU Am
phitheater and voices of students reading
names of victims of the Holocaust. That is
a vital memory. But it can be demeaned
when some descendants of victims act in a
way that turns them into victimizes.
George Beres lives in Eugene.
Letters to the editor
We need to learn
to love one another
Have a heart and use it. I was shocked, as
was Elizabeth Reis, who commented on
May 13, of the publication by Vincent Mar
torano on his views adequately entitled
(“Homosexual men should hide their dis
gusting acts,” ODE, May 9).
However, besides Reis’ simple argument
of the biased opinion being published, I
think more needs to be said. By Martora
no’s proud banner hanging in his window
displaying his hatred for liberals, it is obvi
ous of the boy’s feelings already. I question
his credibility. I wonder if his views of lib
erals and homosexuality are real, or if Mar
torano just likes to stir things up to get a
spot in the Emerald.
Yes, it’s possible that he hates gays, but
does he hate all gays? Or just male gays? I
can’t recall reading anything about his ha
tred for lesbians making out on campus, nor
do I ever expect a male who preaches that he
has no personal sexuality complex to do so.
I find it hard to appreciate an article ex
pressing mere opinion, and especially if it
shows no respect, let alone love, for people
that are different than he is. For the most
part, homosexuality isn’t a choice. It’s a
sexual preference, not a disease, and it’s a
brave group of humans. Let’s learn to love
each other — life’s not always easy.
Nicholas Wilbur
freshman
pre-journalism
Commentary lacked
supporting arguments
The recent guest commentary “Homo
sexual men should hide their disgusting
acts” (ODE, May 9) is problematic primari
ly because it lacks in content. There is no
argument, support, or rationale in the arti
cle. Only assertion is present.
Indeed, the article shouldn’t have been
published — not because it might include
an unpopular opinion but because it does a
horrifying job of defending it. I totally dis
agree with the opinion presented, but how
can one have an argument against an opin
ion that doesn’t seem to have reasoning or
clear arguments behind it?
Wishing that homosexuality be “viewed
by society as an illness” and stating that the
author has “a sense of moral decency that
provides (him) with the knowledge that ho
mosexual behavior is wrong” does nothing
to support the argument that “homosexual
men should hide their disgusting acts” or to
bring light to the debate around queer con
cerns. Those are merely assertions of one’s
personal opinions.
I could state that I think lawyers are evil
and should cover their faces in public, but if
I don’t explain why I think they’re some
how objectionable to me, then I don’t have
much of an editorial. Indeed, printing edi
torial material totally bereft of supporting
arguments is unprofessional and, rather
than opening a hearty debate, stifles it.
Nick Sakurai
Champaign, Illinois