Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@daiIyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemercdd.com
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor.
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Page Assistant:
Salena De La Cruz
i uesaay, may tu, zvuj
New ‘feedback ’
rules aim to stop
false postings
Michael J.
Kleckner
The editors office
So I’m a bit angry at one of our readers. The possibility of
identity theft on the Emerald Web site has occurred to me
before, but until Sunday, I hadn’t actually encountered it. I
guess I thought people were more mature. How silly of me.
Anyway, here’s what happened: Someone posted rather
personal feedback on an opinion piece — can you guess? It
was Vincent Martorano’s May 9 guest commentary — using
a student’s name and e-mail address. The only problem was,
it wasn’t that student who posted the feedback.
I was contacted about the false post
ing, and we immediately removed it
from the Web site. The student felt vio
lated and was rightfully creeped out
that someone would pretend to be her
and write incorrect personal things to
the world. I was creeped out, as well.
This situation has lurked in the back of
my mind as a possibility for some time
because we don’t verify the identity of
people who post feedback.
Some people may be shocked to
hear that, but the feedback function
on our Web site is meant to be an open
forum, not an extended “letters to the
editor” section. Our letters and guest commentaries are vet
ted before publication, meaning we confirm the identity of
the writer and require sources for statements of fact.
Feedback postings, however, offer our extended online com
munity a chance to quickly express their opinions in a free
form way. Unfortunately, it apparently was too free-form. Or
maybe not free enough, as you’ll see in our new system.
To end the potential for misuse and misrepresentation on
feedback, we are requiring nearly total anonymity. Only
first name, occupation and location will be allowed on feed
back postings — no more e-mail addresses or full names.
We think the exchange of information is more important
than identity in this case; if people want to submit their
ideas and have them carry the weight of their name and ti
tle, they are free to submit them as letters to the editor or
guest commentaries. But the feedback section is simply
about ideas.
And to do otherwise — to require full verification for
every piece of feedback — would be prohibitive, both in
terms of labor and time. A reader might not see their feed
back posted until days later if we had to wait for people to
respond to attempts to contact them.
So we will continue to have feedback on the Web site with
the same fast turnaround as always. The ideas, sometimes an
gry, sometimes supportive, will be there as always. The only
difference is that no one will have the ability to pretend to be
someone they’re not. And that eases my anger somewhat. I
hope it eases the violation felt by the student in this case.
Contact the editor in chief at editor@dailyemerald.com.
Online poll
Each week, the Emerald publishes the previous
week’s poll results and the coming week’s poll
question- Visit www.dailyemerald.com to vote.
Last week: What do you think
of homosexuality on campus?
Results: 376 total votes
It’s disgusting and should be hidden ~~ I 8.6
percent, or 70 votes
It should be out and proud — 32.2 percent,
or 121 votes
Everyone should be able to feel comfortable
on campus — 38.8 percent, or 146 votes
No sexuality should be publicly displayed
on campus — 5.6 percent, or 21 votes
I don’t care — 4.3 percent, or 16 votes
Leave me alone! — 0.5 percent, or 2 votes
This week: Should a fetus be recognized
as an entity separate from its mother for legal
reasons?
Choices: Yes; No; What is this about?;
Leave me alone!
The mega-rich cash in
Contrary to invidious rumor-mon
gering, President George W. Bush’s
proposed tax bill, which passed the
Senate in diminished form on Friday,
is not for the rich. Bush is a compas
sionate conservative, and as such he
would never so much as entertain the
notion, in the midst of skyrocketing
joblessness and stagnant profits, to
rub salt into the wounds of our bat
tered economy by lining the pockets
of the undeserving.
That’s why Bush’s tax cut is not for
the rich. It is for the super-rich. The
mega-rich. The media-mogul, oil-mag
nate , dictator-of-a-third-world-country
kind of rich. In other words, the best
kind of rich.
Bush’s proposal
is that long-awaited
opportunity for
those noble mar
tyrs, upon whose
entrepreneurial ge
nius the insipid
masses rely for
their daily bread,
but whose innova
tive energies are
perennially stifled
by a suffocating
anti-business tax code, finally to pry
their necks from under the govern
ment’s boot and fulfill their rightful
destiny of creating jobs.
DJ Fuller
No holds barred
Don’t be discouraged by the presi
dent’s rhetoric. As a politician who
must appeal to the wide-ranging sensi
bilities of a large populace, he must en
gage in a certain amount of misdirec
tion in order to appease the obstinate
enemies of reason.
So when Bush says that “the highest
percentage of tax cuts go to the lowest
income Americans,” don’t panic — he
doesn’t really mean it.
OK, I’ll concede that those snaggle
toothed cesspool dwellers who earn
from #0 to #6,000 a year will see their
rate cut from 15 percent to 10 per
cent. But take comfort, the shabby au
tomatons in the #6,000 to #27,050
range, by far the more significant por
tion of the population, won’t get any
relief whatsoever!
Meanwhile, those who earn over
#297,350 — and what decent person
doesn’t? — will see their rate tumble
from 39.6 percent to a much more rea
sonable 33 percent.
Moreover, the Bush plan would erase
that pesky dividend tax altogether, a
move clearly meant to favor the digni
fied element of society. I mean, do
blue-collar slobs even know what a div
idend is, much less how to read a quar
terly earnings report?
Gan you imagine a beer-bellied pipe fit
ter, meaty head in gnarled paw, tongue in
voluntarily protruding from one side of his
lips, struggling laboriously to compute a
P/E ratio? Ha ha! The absurdity of it is
just too much o bear!
And as for the estate, or “death” tax:
The White House, in a droll bit of sub
terfuge — the irony of which I think
we can all enjoy — says “the punitive
ly high death tax can fall most heavily
on small businesses and family farms
that are asset-rich but cash-poor.”
As we should know, this is hardly
the case. The Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities notes that, “when ful
ly in effect,” the repeal of the estate
Steve Baggs Emerald
tax “would provide as much in tax re
ductions to the 4,500 largest estates as
the entire Bush tax plan would provide
to 142 million people.”
There you have it, you skittish unbe
lievers. Bush does, in fact, have Ameri
ca’s best interests — those of the su
perlatively wealthy — in mind. If you
need any more confirmation of this
fact, just look at the effects of his first
tax bill, passed a scant two years ago.
The Brookings Institution reports that
the top 1 percent of income earners re
ceived 36.7 percent of the share of that
reduction package, while the middle
quintile received only 9.2 percent.
This translates to an average savings
of $45,715 per annum for those who
earn over $373,000, while those who
earned between $27,000 and $44,000
save about $570 a year. And you
thought that Bush might be unfair. Tsk.
Contact the columnist
at djfuller@dailyemerald.com. His opinions
do not necessarily represent those
of the Emerald.
Commentary feeds lowest denominator
Guest commentary
If I wished to use the guest commen
tary as a forum for my feelings of disgust
for a racial minority or a religious group,
would my contribution be accepted? It is
certainly well within my rights as an
American to hold and express such
views, but most recognize them as flawed
intellectually and legally proscribed
when they prompt actions against the
target group. Respectable publications
would refuse to give such opinions an
open forum because they only feed the
lowest denominator of our species.
Why then did the Emerald accept Vin
cent Martorano's expressions of disgust
for homosexuality (“Homosexual men
should hide their disgusting acts,” ODE,
May 9)? His expressions of a “moral de
cency” that allow him to judge others
just because they are unlike his well-bal
anced self are frightening.
It's not the views themselves that
frighten me; they are shop-worn and sad
ly indicative of the social and emotional
limitations persistent in our society.
However, when a University student has
enough comfort and acceptance for such
views that he can have them published in
the campus newspaper, we demonstrate
a transparent lip service to the idea of
honoring a diverse student body.
Not only does the publication of this
homophobic diatribe ignore the physical
danger that these bigots are to those they
feel such aversion for, it also makes me
wonder if I will someday soon pick up the
Emerald to read a Ku Klux Klan sugges
tion for ethnic cleansing. Is there an edi
torial bottom line for the Emerald?
As a closing observation for Martorano:
If he were truly comfortable with his own
sexuality, he wouldn't be worrying about
the orientation of others. No one is inter
ested in his personal choices around sexu
ality as long as he stays within legal bound
aries, and his obsession with the choices of
others indicates an aversion triggered by
problematic psychological patterns. He
should get some therapy before his dis
comfort triggers behaviors inconsistent
with a professional career of any sort.
joan K. Mariner is a senior instructor
in the English department
' P w - f P —V i¥-^ \
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged. Utters are limited to 250 words and guest
I to one submission per calendar month. Submission must include
> edit for space, grammar and style.
/, A y'' \