Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 4, 2005)
Commentary Oregon Daily Emerald Thursday, August 4, 2005 Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist NEWS STAFF (541) 346-5511 SHADRA BF.ESLEY EDITOR IN CHIEF GABE BRADLEY NEWS EDITOR NICHOLAS WILBUR NEWS REPORTER SHAWN MILLER SPORTS EDITOR RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR AILEE SLATER COMMENTARY EDITOR TIM BOBOSKY PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR WENDY KIEFFER DESIGN EDITOR |ENNY GERWICK COPY CHIEF BRETFURTWANGLER GRAPHIC ARTIST BUSINESS (541)346-5511 IUDYRIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER ALEX CORBIN ALAN FULLERTON RYAN JOHNSON DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541) 346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR MIA LEIDELMEYER SALES MANAGER DIANA ERSKJNE KELLEE KAUFTHEIL STEPHEN MILLER EMILY PH1LBIN KATIE STRINGER CODY WILSON SALES REPRESENTATIVES CLASSIFIED (541)3464343 TR1NA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KORALYNN BASHAM KATYGAGNON KERI SPANGLER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541)3464381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER KIRA PARK PRODUCTION COORDINATOR The Oregon Dally Emerald is pub lished daily Monday through Fri day dunng 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 or use of papers is prosecutable by law. ■ Guest commentary Londoners exhibit example of how to win the 'war on terror' The recent terror attacks in London have heightened worries amongst Americans of an encore performance here in the United States, either on our transportation system or some thing more spectacular, such as on the level of Sept. 11. Many Americans are even resigned to that likelihood, knowing that it is really not a matter of if but when. Were an attack to occur in the Unit ed States, one can only hope that Americans would respond with the poise and undeterred spirit of Lon doners, who were not cowed by these despicable acts of violence. The speed with which Londoners returned to the Underground and to their daily lives was nothing short of astonish ing. Their example, if followed, shall prove in time an antidote to the ven om of terrorism. Terrorist attacks are designed to frighten us even more than to kill us. By controlling our own fears, we con trol the damage done by terrorism. Were an attack to occur, Americans must do as Londoners have and maintain the appearance if not the spirit of normalcy. To do otherwise would be to give terrorists the very thing that they want. After all, terrorism takes its name not from the violence itself, but from the emotion that the violence brings. The “war” on terror is not waged with weapons — it is waged in the head. The front line is in our minds. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. It is a method of using violence against innocent people to gain a political objective. People resort to terrorism to change the terms of a political conflict they were otherwise losing. Therefore, there can really be no “war” on terrorism in any convention al military sense, as military force can not be unleashed on a tactic or method. Moreover, a “war” on terror ism can never truly be over; there can be no armistice, no treaties signed, no holidays to celebrate its end. Terrorism is simply too cheap, too effective, and too available to ever be eradicated. We can only win this "war" by first recognizing that we are, in fact, fight ing three battles. The first is against the enemy that is our fear. Fear is what the terrorists intend to produce. If we are all afraid of terrorism, we are all its victims. The more we allow terrorism, and the fear of terrorism to distort our domestic life, the more we do the ter rorists’ work. By changing ourselves we do the job the terrorist couldn’t personally achieve. The second battle we must win is against the terrorists themselves, who must be thwarted, captured or killed by every diplomatic, financial, and mil itary means available. Those who would target and kill noncombatants indiscriminately must be pursued by all nations to the ends of the earth. The third battle is found in con fronting the injustices that terrorists (and their nationalist and religious brethren) see themselves as suffering, injustices believed to be perpetuated by the United States and its allies. Let us not be misled by our politicians: We are under attack not for what we think or what we believe, but for what we do. Terrorists do not “hate our free doms,” they hate our actions. No matter our country’s actions pri or to that day in 2001, there was ab solutely no justification for the horrific attacks of Sept. 11. However, from the perspective of people in the Middle East, our actions since that day have essentially confirmed the charges made against America. Rather than controlling terrorism, our actions in Iraq have licensed it. Through our invasion of choice, not of necessity, we have created a nation-sized terrorist training camp far larger and more live-action than bin Laden ever dreamed of building in Afghanistan. We’re breeding terror ists faster than we can kill them and incubating the next generation of global terrorists. Ultimately, the U.S. Army in Iraq is training the future resistance to itself. While we have to live in danger, we do not have to live in fear. While we must pursue each terrorist and bring each to justice, we do not have to commit further injustices that give rise to more terrorists. We have the capacity to win this war and, as even President Bush has said, reduce ter rorism to the status of nuisance. But first we must stop indulging in the expensive myth that by “bringing the fight to the terrorists" in Iraq, we are making ourselves more safe here at home. Todd Huffman is a pediatrician and writer in Eugene. OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@daityefnerald.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 right to edit tor space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald ■ Editorial Arguments against stem cell research are foolish When Senate Majority leader and Republi can Bill Frist announced his favor of stem cell research just days ago, Republicans nation wide were taken by surprise. Unfortunately, President Bush this week confirmed his stance (already law) that re stricts research to stem cell lines collected before 2001. Although stem cell research is becoming less and less of a partisan issue, many Republicans still agree with research restriction on the “moral” basis that using cells of destroyed fetuses is akin to condoning murder. With Frist’s bold shift in favor of stem cell research, the time has come for other conser vatives to re-evaluate their stance on the sci ence of stem cells. The arguments against re search are simply not sound. To begin with, President Bush has claimed the presence of an “ethical dilem ma” in dealing with stem cell research, ask ing if he can “allow the destruction of life in order to advance science.” Because the be ginnings of life are subjective both person ally and within national policy, Bush’s “ethi cal dilemma” regarding stem cells is really a religious dilemma. As long as separation of church and state exists, President Bush has no right to impose his religious beliefs on America’s scientific legislation. Although it is an obvious violation of the church and state divide, the threat of wasting fetuses continues on as the main argument against stem cell research. Religious activists seem to believe that if stem cells are desirable to the scientific community, women nation wide will terminate their pregnancies in the name of science. Of course, such a claim is unwarranted, and insulting to the intelligence of women. As long is there is a policy that stem cells will only be used for research if they would otherwise be discarded, there is no moral problem. Why Bush has failed to just put such a policy in place is beyond many Americans; it means that other countries will get ahead on stem cell research because America can’t just make regulations and do the best research possible into stem cells. Another interesting angle to consider is that stem cell research is a unique scientific ven ue, wherein research, results and profits will be produced outside of America’s corporate atmosphere. Universities do most stem cell studies, and the results of that research will not benefit pharmaceutical companies — the same companies who gave so much support to President Bush during his campaign. Similar to an organ transplant, cell and gene therapy could eventually eliminate the need for many prescription medications. We can easily assume that America’s pharmaceu tical companies are well aware of that fact, and probably have few qualms about letting the Bush administration know exactly how they feel. The right wing is using stem cells as just another outlet to let the world know exact ly how it feels about infanticide. However, it is science, women and the future of our country that take the biggest hit from this religious zealotry. EDITORIAL BOARD Shadra Beesley Ailee Slater Editor in Chief Commentary Editor Tim Bobosky Photo and Online Editor
