Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 30, 2004)
* 'iTfvUVl » vhVO Oregon Daily Emerald Thursday, September 30, 2004 NEWS STAFF 346-5511 JEN SUDICK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR AYISUA YAHYA IARED PABEN NEWS EDITORS PARKER HOWELL SENIOR NEWS REPORTER MORIAH BALINCIT CAN El A WOOD ANTHONY LUCERO KARA HANSEN MECHANN CUN1FF NEWS REPORTERS CLAYTON JONES SPORTS EDITOR JON ROETMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MILLER BRIAN SMITH SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURC PULSE EDITOR NATASHA CHIUNGER1AN SENIOR PULSE REPORTER RYAN MURPHY DAHV1 FISCHER AMY LICHTY PULSE REPORTERS DAVID JACERNAUTH EDITORIAL EDITOR TRAVIS WILLSE AILEE SLATER CHUCK SLOTHOWER JENNIFER MCBRIDE COLUMNISTS ASHLEY CRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR CABE BRADLEY NEWS FREELANCE EDITOR/ DIRECTOR OF RECRUITMENT DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR LAUREN WIMER SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER TIM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHER ERIK BISHOFF PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER BRET FURTWANCLER GRAPHICS EDITOR KIRA PARK DESIGN EDITOR ELLIOTT ASBURY CHARLIE CALDWELL DUSTIN REESE IEANN1E EVERS SHADRA BEESLEY COPY CHIEFS PAULTHOMPSON KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD SPORTS COPY EDITORS AMANDA EVRARD AMBER UNDROS NEWS COPY EDITORS LINDSAY BURT PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR BUSINESS 346-5511 JUDYRIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER REBECCA CRITCHETT RECEPTIONIST NOAH EVENS JOHN LONC MALLORY MAHONEY HOLLY M1STELL XAVIER XIONG DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING 346-3712 MELISSA CUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER ALEX AMES MATT BETZ HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN MEGAN HAMLIN ELISA IESSOP MAECAN KASER-LEE MIA LE1DELMEYER EMILY PH1LBIN SALES REPRESENTATIVES KELLEE KAUFIHEIL AD ASSISTANT CLASSIFIED 3464343 TRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KATY GAGNON SABRINA GOWETTE LESLIE STRAIGHT KERI SPANGLER KATIE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION 3464381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER TARA SLOAN PRODUCTION COORDINATOR JENCRAMLETT KRISTEN DICHARRY CAMERON GAUT ANDY HOLLAND DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub lished daily Monday through Fri day during the school year by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Ore gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is pnvate property Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. ■ In my opinion Hot air and cold issues Comparing presidential elections to each other is a tricky business. Four years is just long enough to push half-willed campaign promises, near-slanderous commercials and sound-byte debates out of even an informed voter's memory. But this problem of comparative elec toral judgments is even muddier for vot ers as young as myself, who generally lacked political perspective for most of the elections for which they’ve been alive. Even after taking account of this uneven appreciation for politics, though, I’m willing to call this year’s presidential campaign, without question, the most frustrating contest in memory. Gobbledygook about Senate votes and dubious analyses of employment numbers clog the public’s conscious ness, while the major candidates’ posi tions on the economy, Iraq and the war on terror (whatever that means now) are shapeless, impractical or both. And it's not even October yet. Both parties deserve blame for the in tellectually bankrupt kabuki of Swift boats and National Guard service that is presidential electoral politics 2004. But Democratic strategists and their Republi can counterparts are culpable for differ ent reasons. In a gambit demanding more moxie than seems tenable in a presidential race, Republican strategists followed inquiries into President Bush’s spotty National Guard service with criticism of Sen. John Kerry’s own service from the era. Never mind that Kerry’s superiors thought his service merited Bronze and Silver stars, which are awarded respectively for hero ic or meritorious achievement or service and gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States. (Incidentally, Kerry _i'll 11 IP _ TRAVIS WILLSE RIVALESS WIT also received three Purple Hearts.) Really, it’s unclear how relevant any of that should be. How much one’s con duct three decades ago define one’s present character is debatable, and drawing conclusions about likely presi dential policy from what someone did in 1972 is tenuous at best. (In the most compelling argument for a relevant con nection between the candidates’ pasts and presents that I’ve read, Slate Maga zine’s William Saletan suggested in a Sept. 16 piece that Bush’s Vietnam-era service is relevant because of his present day “abuse” of the Guard. That’s fine, but military policy should be defined on the terms of ensuring domestic tranquil ity and providing for the common de fense, not on those of the personal serv ice histories of its executors.) In any case, for reasons unclear — unless they’re those of irrelevance as described above, which are probably too far above modern electoral politics to be practical — Kerry’s softball cam paign has largely avoided firing back about the comparison, squandering what looks like a forensic freebie of ele phantine proportions. And such is Kerry’s worse electoral folly to date: An evident inability to capi talize on key Bush campaign (and poli cy) shortcomings. The most potent way to counter Bush’s unduly optimistic and largely untenable present plan for Iraq is, of course, offering a more practical, co gent course. (For those who disagree with my prognosis of the Bush adminis tration’s Iraqi fortunes, consider both the shortcomings of the plan to date and the administration’s unwillingness to curb them to practicality.) Kerry’s problem isn’t that America likes the status quo too much to listen: According to a Democracy Corps poll taken Sept. 19-21, only 43 percent of like ly voters think that the nation is headed in the right direction. Fifty-two percent said it was on the wrong track. Kerry’s problem is the same one that I suggested plagued the Democratic Party’s message in this space last fall (“Democrats’ demise;” ODE; Nov. 7, 2003): His talk about Iraq and the war on terror so far seems vague, disjoint ed or just noncommittal. In fact, Ker ry’s views on Iraq are not contradicto ry, as critics would like to suggest, but thf y are nuanced, and they haven’t yet ,Jueen digestibly explained. And, for bet ter or worse, casual issue voters pick proposals on gut reaction and quick comprehensibility, not more complex analyses they don’t have time for. Kerry’s first chance in some time to parse more clearly his views on Iraq and the war on terror to a large audience is tonight’s presidential debate, the first of three planned. In a race as close as this — a recent vote projection gave Bush 51.1 percent and Kerry 47.1 percent of the popular vote — every turn of phrase counts. If Kerry wants to close the gap, he’ll need to pick words that are clearer than the jumble he’s offered so far. traviswillse@ daily emerald. com ■ Guest Commentary Dungeon-like rating undeserved Campus dorms not so ‘dungeon like’ as Princeton deems. This summer the Princeton Review released its most recent report on cam puses throughout the country and rat ed the University of Oregon number one in the category “Dorms Like Dun geons.” The “Dorms Like Dungeons” rating is neither accurate nor deserved. The Princeton Review survey instru ment contains 73 questions, two of which have to do with residence halls. (Those two questions have to do with “dorm comfort” and “residence hall In ternet connection.”) No survey with two questions about residence halls is adequate to determine whether or not any campus has the best or worst resi dence halls in the country. We have not been unable to ascertain how many surveys they received from University students or even if any residence hall students completed their survey. In addition, they apparently only survey students every three years, so the data this year’s ratings were based on what was collected in 2001. They claim that student ratings don’t change very much from year to year. Most important, however, is that these results are inconsistent with in formation University students report when we survey them about their resi dence hall experience. Students tell us that they particularly appreciate the quality, variety and long hours of our food service, how quickly maintenance requests are fulfilled and the friendli ness of the custodial staff. The one thing they would change is our older facilities. They would like larg er rooms and rooms that are better at accommodating their modern needs and keeping out unwanted noise. These findings are not surprising and the Uni versity is addressing them in two ways: 1. We are building a Living Learning Center, the first step in updating all of our residence halls. The Living Learning Center will have rooms that are 50 percent larger than the rooms in most of our residence halls. The rooms will also have better sound-proofing than our current residence hall rooms. After completion of the Living Learn ing Center we will move on to renovate or replace existing residence halls. 2. We have created several proto type rooms to get feedback from residents about modifications we can make in existing residence halls to maximize the effective cubic footage in each room. Feedback on these pro totype rooms has been positive. The University clearly has work to do with regard to updating our resi dence hall facilities. However, existing facilities have been well-maintained and the public areas are cleaned regu larly and diligently. Mike Eyster is assistant vice president for student affairs and director of University housing. ■ Editorial No.l worst dorms: not a shock to students Last week, The Register-Guard ran a re action piece to an article in our Back to the Books issue. Mike Eyster, director of Uni versity Housing, essentially ballyhooed the less-than-scientific method used by the Princeton Review to rank the residence halls at the University as No. 1 in the “Dorms Like Dungeons” category. Scien tific or not, — it’s true. Every year, people find out, once again, that the residence halls aren’t worth the ridiculous rates charged. And what was this “wincing” in the Guard article when we published the Princeton Review’s re sults? Is the Housing Department sur prised? Has anything really changed since last year? University Housing claimed that stu dents generally seem positive on the more detailed surveys they collect. How ever, these surveys are deceptively precise in their questioning. Sure, Princeton Review’s poll questions are broad — but that’s what people look at when they want an overview of a school’s housing experience. Does anyone care that the food is de cent, or the maintenance people are friendly when you find yourself living in a frigid, 148-square-foot shoebox with inad equate storage space, a dearth of power outlets, one microwave for 80 people and a roommate who has nothing in common with you? Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it’s raining. Prefabricated concrete slab walls accented with heavy masonry and tiny prison-like windows may have been all the rage during the Eisenhower adminis tration, they are a bit outdated today. We know Housing is building a new res idence hall complex, and it’s going to be lovely and wonderful because it will be wired from top to bottom, and the toilets will always smell like roses. But will the Living Learning Center become the next Barnhart — yet another fancy residence hall for athletes and the students willing to pay top dollar for the amenities, like floor space, that other colleges offer? The new complex should be reserved for the average student, who nowadays gets crammed into Bean Complex. These are the people who deserve the extra architectural elements designed to foster community because these are the students closest to what residential halls are supposed to embody — a mixed bag of people from every conceivable back ground coming together to build a com munity from scratch. OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.CQm or submitted at the Oregon Daily EmeraU office, EMU Suite 300, Electronic submissions ate preferred Letters are limited to 250words, and guest commentaries to 550 wxds Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month. Submissions should riclude phone number and address for verification. The Emerald reserves the rtgjit to edit for space, grammar and style Guest submissions are pub&shed at the discretion of the Emerald.
