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