Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 26, 2004)
Co mmefl tsiry Oregon Daily Emerald Thesday, October 26, 2004 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 JEN SUDICK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR JARED PABEN AYISHA YAHYA NEWS EDITORS PARKER HOWELL SENIOR NEWS REPORTER MORIAH BAUNGIT MEGHANN CUNIFF KARA HANSEN ANTHONY LUCERO CANELA WOOD NEWS REPORTERS CIAYTON JONES SPORTS EDITOR JON ROETMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MILLER BRIAN SMITH SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR NATASHA CHILINGERIAN SENIOR PULSE REPORTER DAHVI FISCHER AMY L1CHTY RYAN MURPHY PULSE REPORTERS DAVID IAGERNAUTH EDITORIAL EDITOR JENNIFER MCBRIDE AILEF. SLATER CHUCK SI.OTHOWER TRAVIS W1LLSE COLUMNISTS ASHLEY GRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR GABE BRADLEY NE WS FREELANCE EDITOR/ DIRECTOR OF RECRUITMENT DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR IAURF.N WIMER •'•r NIOR PHOTOGRAPHER TIM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHER NICOLE BARKER PALI IiME PHOTOGRAPHER ERIK BISHOFF PV- i (IME PHOTOGRAPHER BRET FURTWANGLER GRAPHICS EDITOR KIRA PARK DESIGN EDITOR ELLIOTT ASBURY C HARLIE CALDWELL DUSTIN REESE DESIGNERS SHADRA BEESLEY JEANNIE EVERS COPY CHIEFS KIMBERLY BIACKFIELD PAULTHOMPSON SPORTS COPY EDITORS AMANDA EVRARD AMBER LINDROS NEWS COPY EDITORS LINDSAY BURT PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR SLADE LEESON WEBMASTER BUSINESS (541)346-5511 JUDY RIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER REBECCA CRITCHETT RECEPTIONIST NATHAN FOSTER AIB1NG GUO ANDREW LEAHY JOHN LONG MALLORY MAHONEY HOLLY M1STELL DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541)346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER ALEX AMES MATT BETZ HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN MEGAN HAMLIN KATE HIRONAKA MAEGAN KASER-LEE MIA LEIDELMEYER EMILY PHILBIN SHANNON ROGERS SALES REPRESENTATIVES KELLEE KAUFTHEIL AD ASSISTANT CLASSIFIED (541)3464343 TRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KATY GAGNON SABRINA GOWETTE LESUE STRAIGHT KERI SPANGLER KATIE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541)3464381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER TARA SLOAN PRODUCTION COORDINATOR JEN CRAM ITT KRISTEN DICHARRY CAMERON GAUT ANDY HOLLAND DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald is pu6 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 private property. Unlawful removal nr use of papers is prosecutable by law. / f* ■ In my opinion Columnists chop down Measure 34 Chuck Slothower — NO Measure 34 has the right intention, which is to safeguard Oregon’s forest land from excessive timber production. But as we all know, the road to Spring field (hell is so passe) is paved with good intentions. While Oregon’s state forests could stand a reorientation to ward conservation and away from tim ber production, Measure 34 would mi cro-manage competent professionals. People who manage state forests know what they’re doing. They don’t need voters tying their hands. Perhaps an even greater concern is that Measure 34 would negatively affect local school funding when schools need every red cent they can get. The Voters’ Pamphlet estimates the measure would decrease local government revenues by $17.2 to $19.4 million a year, much of which would come out of school funding. The initiative is far too blunt a tool to man age the delicate balance of Oregon’s forests. 7favis Willse — NO While new high-tech industries have propelled Oregon's exports into the 21st Century, the state's forests remain one of its most valuable, if contested, assets.Forestry experts spent seven years building a working plan for state forest management around the collec tive knowledge of agencies, county of ficials, academics, conservationists and others who have a stake in one of Ore gon’s oldest legacies. Measure 34, however, would discard the benefits of this balanced, organic process in favor of a ham-fisted approach that blindly and inappropriately reassigns priori ties. Worse, including state expendi tures and decreases in state and local government revenue, Measure 34 would cost at least $26.2 million annu ally in an already cash-strapped state. In myopically zeroing in on only one priority for a system as complex as the state’s forests, economy and liveli hood, Measure 34 can't see the forest for the trees. Vote no on Measure 34. Ailee Slater — NO A yes vote on Measure 34 will result in at least $17.2 million less per year for local governments, cutting $8.6 mil lion in school funding and more than 2,000 jobs throughout Oregon. Instead of this costly measure, forest manage ment in Oregon should be allowed to operate under its current system, which is already managed for mixed uses, including the timber industry as well as protection of the watershed and fish and wildlife. Because timber rev enue funds forest management, Mea sure 34 would actually reduce money that counties are currently using to pro tect drinking water and wildlife habi tats. Although the environment is cer tainly an important issue in our world today, 1 implore voters to remember that the Oregon economy cannot be held responsible for the poor environ mental choices of our nation, especial ly with a measure that could do more harm than good to the protection of precious natural resources. Jennifer McBride — NO I don't live in Tillamook. I doubt 1 will ever visit the Tillamook forest. We're in a time of economic crisis, and I don't feel comfortable taking food out of people's mouths and money from our schools, hospitals and mental health care facilities when sustainable forest management is possible by other means. 1 trust the Oregon Department of Forestry knows more about what they are doing than I do, so I will vote to leave management in their hands. INBOX Legal abortion allows termination of human life Why is this country obsessed with ter minating human life? I want to seriously think about this question. The pantheon of great legal, moral and scientific minds in our society have done everything within their power over the last 40 years to justify the termination of human life. We call it abortion and it has developed efficiently into a billion-dollar industry. In keeping with our great entrepreneur ial spirit, Americans have figured out how to generate an insatiable, capitalis tic institution based primarily on the ter mination of human life. How cold is our conscience as a nation, as a people and as individu als? This great beacon of life, liberty and property daily calculates the marginal rates of return for the n + 1 abortion. Without a blip of concern we forecast for the third quarter whether we will terminate a suffi cient volume of human lives so as to meet operational costs and deliver re ports at board meetings. Many are enjoying the act of hating Bush during this election season, even comparing him to history’s greatest cap tains of evil, such as Hitler and Stalin. Hitler rose to kill two-thirds of an entire race by exterminating six million Jews. Stalin topped that by killing 20 million Ukrainians. But this election year we have to make it a priority to topple the Bush administration because he opposes an institution we have deemed a consti tutional right, an institution responsible between the years of 1970-2000 for per forming over 38 million legal, reported human life terminations. Ethan Nelson Eugene OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@daityemerald.com or submitted at Ihe Oregon Daily Emerald office EMU Suite 300 Electronic submissions are preferred Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month Submissions should include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald ■ Editorial Varying levels of controversy hit ballots Measures 31 and 32 — YES There is a reason why nobody ponied up $500 to come out against these two measures in the Voters’ Pamphlet — both are largely uncontroversial. Measure 31 would delay an election in the case of a candidate’s death. Some are weary of changing the constitution for a problem that has not yet occurred in Oregon, but this is a proactive fix that would ultimately strengthen our democracy. Measure 32 would change the wording of the state constitution to allow fees and taxes as sessed on mobile homes to be used for purposes other than highway mainte nance and repair. This measure is nothing more than a shift in bureaucratic respon sibility. There’s no reason to oppose this benign proposal by our state legislature. Measure 33 — YES We support the use of marijuana for med ical purposes. It is the humane thing to do. Measure 33 would improve our existing med ical marijuana law by providing easier access to the drug. As the law stands now, patients are forced to grow their own medicine or rely on a “caregiver” to grow it for them. We don’t force people to brew their own Morphine when they are in pain. If we are going to take seriously the use of marijuana as medicine, then we must allow those in need to purchase the drugs from a convenient dispensary. We must also allow patients to have enough of the medicine so that it can be maximally ef fective. Measure 33 would do all of this. Do not believe the fear mongers. This measure will strengthen, not weaken, our medical marijuana law. This measure will not result in de facto legalization. This measure will not create rampant drug use. This meas ure will not break the bank or cause the feds to lock up all Oregonians. Measure 33 will simply remove the barriers that currently ex ist between patients and the medicine they need to ease their pain and suffering. Measure 34 — NO We appreciate the spirit behind Measure 34. Our forests have been mismanaged. The ethic of conservation has lost to the pres sures of industry time and time again. How ever, we cannot in good conscience support this measure. The initiative process should not be used as a backdoor means of manip ulating the management of our forests. The 50/50 solution outlined in Measure 34 — in which half of the Tillamook forests would be managed for restoration and half for production — sounds fair but is arbitrar ily drawn. Balancing protection, recreation and timber production is a complex matter. This complicated decision-making process should not be pre-empted by activists with a ballot measure. Furthermore, we cannot be certain of the consequences of 34. Perhaps Measure 34 is the best thing for Oregon’s forests, perhaps it’s not. But deciding an issue like this one through the ballot would set a dangerous precedent for an initiative process that is al ready dangerously misused. EDITORIAL BOARD Jennifer Sudick Editor in Chief David Jagernauth Editorial Editor Steven R. Neuman Managing Editor Gabe Bradley Freelance Editor
