Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Tuesday, July 6, 2004
-Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
fared Paben
Managing Editor:
Travis Willse
E DITORI AI.
Saddam's trial
is censored
suspiciously
The United Stales has doled out more ammunition for
those who continue to take aim at the legitimacy of Saddam
Hussein's trial.
Much of the video and audio of Saddam's first public trial
appearance Thursday was censored by the ll.S. military, ac
cording to news reports, adding fuel to the belief that the ju
dicial drama is nothing short of a kangaroo court engineered
by the United States.
Before the trial, U.S. officials told media not to take footage
of Iraqi guards or court personnel, according to a www.vari
ety.com article.
This is probably fair, given that there are valid concerns that
insurgents may target those involved in the trial, but, accord
ing to the article, U.S. officials heavily censored audio of the
trial, forcing crews to turn off some of their equipment and to
delete sound and video.
The Christian Science Monitor also reported that "most of
the audio track was initially deleted and the images carefully
screened" by U.S. military censors.
According to the www.variety.com article, media outlets
agreed to let the military censor their audio and video. Not
only does this reflect the media's willingness to cave in and
abandon any leverage they may have had over the trial cover
age, but it sets a dangerous precedent, sending a clear message
to the military that the ball is in its court and negotiating ac
cess to information is unnecessary.
That the government is engaging is this sort of heavy-hand
ed censorship should draw concern. If it were purely for the
security of those involved in the trial, then, clearly, the censor
ship of audio of Saddam speaking would not be necessary.
But, there may be another, more dastardly reason.
On July 3, the Associated Press reported that interim Iraqi
prime minister lyad Allawi earlier suggested closing the trial
to keep Saddam from talking about "embarrassing links with
past governments," such as Iraq's close ties with the United
States during Iraq's war with Iran. (Notably, Iraq deployed
chemical weapons during the war.)
But, whatever its reason for the censorship, the U.S. govern
ment needs to quit attempting to force the media to turn out
what is de facto propaganda by omission and let them do
their job. The military so desperately wants to make the trial
and the power handover appear legitimate, but the answer is
right below its nose, and within its control.
. EDITORIAL BOARD
Jared Paben Travis Willse
Editor in Chief Managing Editor
Erik R. Bishoff
Online & Photo Editor
ONLINE POLL
THIS WEEK'S POLL RESULTS
Is it fair that conservative special interest groups are trying to help Ralph
Nader get on the Oregon ballot7 (27 votes)
1. Yes - They are not breaking any laws, so who cares7 44 percent
2. No - It undermines the spirit of democracy 37 percent
3. Yes - They want their candidate to win and they are doing everything
they can to ensure it 11 percent
4. No - It is unethical for them to try to hijack Nader's campaign 7 percent
NEXT WEEK’S QUESTION
What is your favorite hangover remedy7
• Cactus juice • Greasy breakfast
• Coffee/Cola • Hair-o -the-dog (keep drinking)
• Don't drink in the first place • Herbal supplements
Every once in a while I feel it necessary
to stop what I'm doing, walk onto my
front porch and scream "Congress, are you
on crack?!" up toward the heavens. Lately,
however, I've been directing my inquiries
toward the ground, for obvious reasons.
Case in point: The latest in an unending
effort to screw college students in this
country is Mouse Resolution 4283, the so
called "College Access and Opportunity
Act," which is so laughably corrupt that it
would astound Richard Nixon himself.
At its face, the bill seems like a gift from
all the rich men up in the House Educa
tion and Workforce Committee who, as
we all know, have such a bleeding heart for
the penniless college grad struggling to
find a job in the face of staggering unem
ployment rates. But one clause in the bill
— the one that would repeal the ability for
graduates to lock their consolidated loans
into a fixed interest rate — should concern
any college student.
See, all the wonderful financial aid loans
that students receive will inevitably be a
monetary black hole for years after college.
To make the repayment period easier,
though, Congress passed legislation years
ago that would allow graduates to switch
from variable to fixed interest rates on
loans. That way, graduates could pack all
their debt into one consolidated loan via a
business such as Sallie Mae, lock in a set in
terest rate for the life of the loan (right now
the interest rate is at a record low), and
then pay the company back for the consol
idated loan, either to reduce monthly pay
ments or reduce the total payment.
What resulted was less burden on the
graduate while he or she tried to find a job
and start a career. What also resulted was
the federal government losing billions in
interest at the expense "America's future."
Now, that fixed-rate plan is under attack by
the vultures in Washington.
It's easy to blame Congress for simply
having a bad idea. It would be nice to say,
"Yeah, the lawmakers just got it wrong"
J. TOBIAS MONTRY
STOP BREEDING
and keep a straight face. But it's not possi
ble anymore. Look a little deeper into the
motivations of the new plan and you will
see the cold, hard truth.
Here goes: Sallie Mae, arguably the
largest student-loan corporation, is lobby
ing heavily for the bill, saying subsidies for
college graduates should instead be used
to help potential undergraduates get into
college. Aw, how sweet. Corporate America
DOES care! It cares about that, and the
millions that major loan companies stand
to gain if students repaying consolidated
loans are forced to cough up more for
longer periods of time.
Anyway, continuing: Republican Rep.
John Boehner of Ohio, the chairman of
the Education and Workforce Committee,
received thousands from Sallie Mae for his
re-election campaign to Congress, accord
ing to www.openseaets.org. Holy aedibil
ity gap, Batman! Similarly, Democratic
Rep. George Miller of California, the rank
ing minority leader on the Committee, re
ceived $10,000 from Sallie Mae in 2004. Is
it a coincidence that the two ranking
members of the Committee were also the
targets of such contributions? 1 think not.
This next part really tugs at the conspira
cy-theory heartstrings, but bear with me.
Sallie Mae, in defending its noble mission
to save education from Communist col
lege graduates, points to a study called
'The Fiscal and Social Costs of Consolidat
ing Student Loans at a Fixed Interest Rate."
The study was conducted in part by Kevin
Hassett of the American Enterprise
Institute, which has Harvey Golub, a for
mer chairman and CEO of American Ex
press, on its board of trustees. American
Express, as it turns out, is also a major con
tributor to Boehner. D'oh!
So, let's review. We know the political
motivations for the bill (money), and we
know the Institute's motivations for the
bill (money), but what's in it for Sallie
Mae? Would a corporation focusing on the
bottom line really be concerned that fu
ture student borrowers need more money?
Perhaps, but the Public Interest Research
Group has another theory. The group says
the bill will discourage lenders from seek
ing out competitors of Sallie Mae. That is,
if this bill passes, loan consolidation will
become more expensive, especially with
the bill's proposed increase in the interest
rate cap from 6.8 percent to 8.25 percent.
Consolidating with different lenders
would therefore become unattractive, leav
ing one particular leading traditional
lender with a whole lot more business (it
starts with S and ends with allie Mae).
Sure, the bill is great for the federal gov
ernment, which would save $20 billion
on the backs of college students. And it's
great for major loan corporations, which
would face less competition and more
business. But what does the bill mean for
us? According to the Congressional Re
search Service, interest on an average
$17,000 loan would more than double,
meaning the average student would shell
out about $5,500 more.
Not that politicians really give a damn.
In the off chance that a student makes it
through the under-funded public K-l 2 sys
tem, and somehow manages to face sky
rocketing tuition increases and make it
through college, this bill will give that stu
dent another thing to enjoy: Finding a job
in this economy and paying back more
money for longer periods of time!
Gee, it's good to be a student in America.
janmontiy@dailyemeiald.com
Court should keep porn from children
(ll-WIRE) Blacksburg, Va. — On the
still-smoldering heels of the Janet Jackson
mammary-revealing Super Bowl escapade
and Howard Stern's never ending exple
tive-laced comments and subsequent fines
by the FCC, the Supreme Court has taken
it upon itself to take a step backward in the
fight to protect children and other unsus
pecting innocents from unwanted inva
sion of moral decency.
In a 5-4 vote June 29 over a law passed
in 1998, the majority ruled that the Child
Online Protection Act, signed during Pres
ident Clinton's administration and sup
the First Amendment. Simply put, the
pornographers who push their obscene
material upon unsuspecting web-surfing
children are well within their right to do so
under the First Amendment.
I don’t deny that pornography is legal
and enjoyable for adults, but it is clearly in
decent for children under a certain age.
COMMENTARY
GUEST
ported by
the cur
rent Bush
adminis
tration,
was a vio
lation of
We've heard the stories before, about how
if you type ".com" instead of ".gov," or
omit a letter or a backslash, you'll end up
at a XXX site with ubiquitous pop-up ads.
Of course, these are pure accidents in some
cases, but there are pornographers who
prey on the children out there who make
innocent mistakes in their typing of Web
sites. The COPA was out to punish those
who took advantage of the youngsters'
mistakes, and now we'll have to wait even
longer to see justice done.
It's not that I think pornography itself is
inherently wrong or even subject to the First
Amendment, but 1 have a problem when it
is placed in front of someone who couldn't
tell you what the First Amendment is. To
this end, we need to apply John Stuart Mill's
Harm Principle when dealing with issues of
this nature. Mill stated that we should be al
lowed to freely express ourselves as long as
no other individual or their property is
harmed by our expression. In this colum
nist's view, all we re doing is harming the
youngest generation of Americans by allow
ing indecent materials into the homes of
children who are at the most impression
able stages of their lives.
In light of the COPA, I don't think it's an
unreasonable request to have adults who
want to view pornographic Web sites and
content identify themselves as, in fact,
adults who are old enough to do so. We
are carded at movie theatres and rental
places so that we're able to view R and NC
17-rated movies, why not do the same sort
of online check for obscene sites?
The American Civil Liberties Union
claims that the suppression of some
pornography online is a violation of the
First Amendment, but why aren't they ar
guing about movie theatres and video
stores and the discrimination made
against people who aren't old enough to
see movies that have a certain rating? In
fact, why should pornography be treated
any differently than a movie in terms of re
striction to a certain viewing audience, on
line or otherwise?
I'm a staunch advocate of the First
Amendment, but even the most intrinsic
rights and liberties have to come with a
little censorship at times — and pornogra
phy in the hands of children is one of
those times.
Jeff Ferguson
The Collegiate Times (Virginia Tech)