Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 12, 2005)
Commentary Oregon Daily Emerald Tuesday, April 12, 2005 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 |EN SUDICK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR JARED PABF.N AY1SHA YAUYA NEWS EDITORS MEGHANN CUNIFE PARKER HOWELL SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS MORIAH BALINGIT AMANDA BOLSINGF.R ADAM CHERRY EMILY SMITH EVA SYLWESTER SHELDON TRAVER NEWS REPORTERS CLAYTON (ONES SPORTS EDITOR ION ROETMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MILLER BRIAN SMITH SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR AMY LICIJTY SENIOR PULSE REPORTER JOSHUA UNTEREUR PULSE REPORTER CAT BALDWIN PULSE CARTOONIST AILEE S1ATER COMMENTARY EDITOR GABE BRADLEY ANNEMAR1E KNEI’PER CHUCK SLOTHOWER JENNIFER MCBRIDE COLUMNISTS ASHLEY GRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR IAUREN WIMF.R SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER NICOLE BARKER TIM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHER KATE HORTON ZANI. RILL PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS BRET FURTWANGLER GRAPHIC ARTIST DUSTIN REESE SENIOR DESIGNER ELLIOTT ASBURY WENDY K1EFFER AMANDA LEE JONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS SHADRA BEESLEY JEANN1E EVERS COPY CHIEFS KIMBERLY BIACKFIELD PAULTHOMPSON SPORTS COPY EDITORS GREG B1LSLAND AMBER LINDROS NEWS COPY EDITORS JENNY GERW1CK PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR WEBMASTER (541)346-5511 JUDY RIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER 1AUNA DEGIUSTI RECEPTIONIST JF.RED NAGEL PATRICK SCHMERBER HOLLY STEIN JANA SWANSON ROB WEGNER CAROLYN ZIMMERMAN DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541) 346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER MATT BETZ HERON CAL1SCH-DOLF.N MEGAN HAMLIN KATE HIRONAKA MAEGAN KASF.R-LEE KELLEE KAUFTHEIL MIA LEIDELMEYER SHANNON ROGERS SALES REPRESENTATIVES CLASSIFIED (541)3464343 TRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KORALYNN BASHAM ANDO KATY GAGNON KER1 SPANGLER KATIE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541) 3464381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER TARASLOAN PRODUCTION COORDINATOR JEN CRAM LET KRISTEN DICHARRY CAMERON GAUT SABRINA GOWETTE JONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub lished dally 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 No taxation without aggravation Ah, tax season. This is the time of year when most Americans find themselves face to face with the sheer heavy-handed ineptitude of federal bureaucracy. I’m certainly a big believer in rendering unto Cae sar, but we happen to live in a socie ty in which we're allowed to dis agree with Caesar. So, if it please you, I have the following grumblings when it comes to taxes. Higher taxes mean just one thing: a bigger, more wasteful government. Though many conservatives talk about small government as if Ronald Reagan invented the idea, the majori ty of Americans have always, for the most part, supported smaller govern ment and lower taxes. I know the bills need to be paid, but I have philosoph ical reservations about imposing a tax on somebody’s very livelihood in or der to support big government. The federal government used a temporary income tax to pay for the Civil War. The income tax as we know it today wasn’t implemented until the Wilson administration. Un til that time, the federal government paid its bills primarily with tariff rev enue. With the rise of globalization and the attendant decrease in tariffs, together with the increasingly glut tonous appetite of government in a post-Teddy Roosevelt America, a tax on productive labor sounded like a good idea to somebody. So to those who oppose globaliza tion, may I suggest you also oppose the income tax, and maybe you’ll pick up a few more supporters. It’s a reac tionary idea, perhaps, but protection ism itself is kind of reactionary, so there you have it. GABE BRADLEY THE WRITING ON THE WALL And I just can’t stand all the H&R Block commercials this time of year. H&R Block is the second biggest suck er’s bet in the tax business. If your tax situation is complicat ed enough that you can’t just fill in the forms by following the instruc tion manual, then you probably need a real accountant. If you don’t need a real accountant, then there’s absolutely no reason to pay some one else to basically do the work of a well-trained chimpanzee by filling in the forms exactly the way the in struction manual says. But that’s not where H&R Block makes its real money. It make its real money from advance refund checks, which is the first biggest sucker’s bet in the tax business. Speaking of refunds, sometimes I think I’m the only person left alive who isn’t happy to receive a big re fund. People jump up and down in excitement about their refunds. It’s your money! You earned it a while ago, but you’re just receiving it now. Nobody’s giving you money. They’re just giving your money back, with no interest. The bigger your re fund, the more of your own hard earned money has been sitting in the not-so-capable hands of the govern ment being ravaged by inflation without a penny of interest to show for it. The joke’s on you. On my W-4,1 try to get as small a refund as possible. Even more prefer able is to have no refund at all. That way, you pay what you owe when you owe it — not a penny more and not a day earlier. When you do have to calculate your refund, though, notice how on the Form 1040, Line 72a asks you how much of the overpaid amount you’d like refunded to you. Umm ... all of it? Is this a trick question? Is there anyone who really falls for this and decides that this year they feel like paying a little extra tax? Surely they don’t really think we’re that stupid. Do they? For all my grumbling, I don’t agree with those who advocate non-pay ment of income tax as a form of protest or civil disobedience. I defi nitely do not agree with everything for which the government uses my mon ey, and governmental waste infuriates me to no end. Nevertheless, whether I like it or not, I’m paying no more and no less than what our elected repre sentatives have decided upon, which has not always been the case for citi zens of the American nation. I may not like the tax; I may vigor ously disagree with the tax and use my freedom of speech to express this view; but, come tax season, I pay up just like everybody else. We do, after all, have taxation with representa tion. For my money, though, I’d like to see a little less taxation and a little more representation. But maybe that’s just me. gabebradley@ daily emerald, com INBOX Students need to examine science behind transgender On Feb. 16, the Emerald published a news article, a column, and an edi torial, all focusing on transgender identity. Each piece portrayed trans gender people as victims of bigotry. In the editorial, advocating legal protec tion for transgender people, The Emerald wrote: “We must educate ourselves about this issue.” I agree wholeheartedly. A full understanding of this issue can only be gained by exposure to di verse viewpoints, like that of Paul McHugh, Director of Psychiatry at John Hopkins Medical School. McHugh states that, “We in the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department even tually concluded that human sexual identity is mostly built into our consti tution by the genes we inherit and the embryogenesis we undergo” (First Things, November 2004). He views transexuality as a serious medical con dition, writing that “We have to learn how to manage this condition as a mental disorder” (The American Scholar, Autumn 1992). A mental dis order? Such a statement would be de nounced as hate speech on this cam pus. But McHugh's claims do not arise from hate, they arise from science. If the Emerald wants to educate the campus on transgender identity, it will need to discuss the issue in depth. And if that offends transgender people on this campus, so be it. The role of a university is not to tolerate all ideas and lifestyles. Rather, the proper role of a university is to examine all ideas, celebrating the good and dis carding the bad. Debunking the myth that transexuality is natural would be a good place to start. Joe Bailey, Freshman Columnist sympathizes with the wrong gender In AnneMarie Knepper’s commen tary, “Perpetuating the Stereotype” (ODE April 7), Knepper expresses her sympathy for the images portrayed of the “middle-class white guy” within the media. According to Knepper, these men “get no respect” with the common portrayals of them being “all fat, stupid, lazy and helpless.” Is the white middle-class guy worthy of respect? The stereotypes of women portrayed in the media, as well as in American society as a whole, demand women to be thin, sexy yet virginal, subordinate and selfless. These unrealistic requirements that society and the media demand of women are more destructive than those imposed on middle-class white men. In conjunction with recent events, Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s unfortunate condition and death resulted primari ly from brain failure due to bulimia. The media’s detrimental portrayals of women prove to be just that. What is so fatal about the lazy, couch potato white guy? And just who is responsible for these destruc tive images and stereotypes of women perpetuated in American media and society to begin with? Congratulations to some of Emerald's ASUO picks The Emerald endorses its picks for ASUO (ODE April 6). I thought I would never see the day. Way to go Miles Rost for giving articulate enough answers to earn the ODE's en dorsement for Senate Seat 1, and way to go College Republicans for getting someone smart enough to challenge the status quo! Julie Higgs, Senior :ott Austin, Taiwan ROC OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at the 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 ri^it to edit tor space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald. ■ Editorial Birth control controversy creeps into pharmacies Recently, the debate over abortion and birth control has checked out of the doctor’s office, and is now shifting around impatiently in the lines of pharmacies. Over the past six months, there have been at least 180 documented situations in which a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for birth control or similar drugs involving repro duction. These are professional representa tives of the medical industry refusing to give women medications that they have been pre scribed and, in some cases, even refusing to give patients their prescriptions back so they can go elsewhere to have them filled. Different states handle the issue in different ways. After a Chicago woman was unable to receive her birth control prescription, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich put out an April 1 emergency rule stating that pharmacists must fill contraceptive prescriptions, with “No de lays. No hassles. No lectures.” If the pharma cist absolutely will not fill the prescription, they must immediately find someone else who will. In an opposite move, the Arizona House of Representatives recently approved something called a conscience clause, meaning that any pharmacist who does not wish to fill a partic ular prescription because of moral or religious ground is not required to do so. That pharma cist is also not required to refer the prescrip tion-seeker to another pharmacy. This nationwide situation brings to light a serious a problem: the placement of morals, usually religious, within the medical sphere. Doctors in many states are also subject to a different type of conscience clause that allows them to refuse abortion procedures based on moral principles as long as they refer their pa tients to other abortion doctors. In this case, the conscience clause usually makes sense. Pharmacists, however, are in a different po sition. A doctor opposed to abortion would not enter a field of specialization that required the performance of such a procedure; phar macists do not have this luxury, they distrib ute all forms of drugs. For a pharamcist to re fuse to fill a prescription for birth control, a commonly prescribed drug, would be akin to a physician refusing to see patients with sexu ally transmitted infections. It is important to consider the meaning be hind Arizona’s decision: a pharmacist’s belief that sex before marriage is wrong overrides a patient’s decision to prevent unwanted preg nancy. A pharmacist’s morals may dictate that it is wrong to prevent oneself from ovulating, but the woman’s morals probably dictate that it is wrong to have unprotected sex before she is ready to raise a child. To think that the morals of the pharmacist, a third party, could be valued above the morals of a patient under any circumstance is ridiculous. Regardless of their personal feelings, phar macists are part of the medical profession, and they have a job to perform. Those who cannot bring objectivity to their jobs should be barred from practice. Oregon should take a page from the mod ern Hippocratic Oath — prevention is prefer able to cure. The state must require phra macists to fill patients’ prescriptions, regardless of their personal ethics. We need proper conscience clauses here to hold phar macists to the standards of objectivity we ex pect in the medical field.
