Oregon Daily Emerald
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
PARKER HOWELL
EDITOR IN CHIEF
SHADRA BEES LEY
MANAGING EDITOR
MEGI1ANN M. CUN I FT
IARED PABEN
NEWS EDITORS
EVA SYLWESTER
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
KELLY BROWN
KATY GAGNON
CHRISTOPHER HAGAN
BRITnMI MCCLENAHAN
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTERS
JOE BAILEY
EMILY SMITH
PART-TIME NEWS REPORTERS
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
SCOTTJADAMS
LUKEANDREWS
JEFFREY DRANSFELDT
SPORTS REPORTERS
AMYLICHTV
PULSE EDITOR
TREVOR DAVIS
KRISTEN GERHARD
ANDREW MCCOLLUM
PULSE REPORTERS
AJLEE SLATER
COMMENTARY1 EDITOR
GABE BRADLEY
JESSICA DERLETH
ARMY FEXH
COLUMNISTS
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTO EDITOR
NICOLE BARKER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
KATE HORTON
ZANE RITT
PHOTOGRAPHERS
JONAH SCHROGIN
DESIGN EDITOR
JOHN AYRES
MOLLY BEDFORD
OSSIE BLADINE
KF.RI spangler
DESIGNERS
CHRIS TODD
GRAPHIC ARTIST
AARON DUCHATEAU
ILLUSTRATOR
DAWN HELZER
REBECCA TAYLOR
COPY CHIEFS
JENNY DORNER
BRYN IANSSON
IOSH NORRIS
IENNA ROHRBACHER
MATT TIFFANY
COPYEDITORS
STEVEN NEUMAN
ONLINE/SUPPLEMENTS EDITOR
TIMOTHY ROBINSON
WEBMASTER
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
LAUNA DE GIUSTT
RECEPTIONIST
JILL ATKINSON
LUKE BELLOTT!
RYAN JOHNSON
SEBASTIAN STORLORZ
NICKVICINO
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA I.EIDELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
JOHN KELLY
LINDSEY FERGUSON
WINTER GIBBS
KATE HIRONAKA
DESI MCCORMICK
STEPHEN MILLER
KATHRYN O'SHEA EVANS
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
BONA LEE
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541) 3464343_
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
LISA CLARK
ANDO
AMANDA KANTOR
KERI SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541)3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
JAMIE ACKERMAN
CAITLIN MCCURDY
ERIN MCKENZIE
JONAH SCHROGIN
TERRY STRONG
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 private property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law
■ In my opinion
How manipulating words
rewrites history history
During his speech last week,
George W. Bush finally lashed out at
those criticizing his decision to go to
war. On a positive note, it only took
him two years to acknowledge the
fact that a lot of people share the
view that we were misled into war.
On a disrespectful note, he used Vet
eran’s Day as a platform to defend
the fact that he sent our soldiers to
war for reasons now known to be
untrue. On a hypocritical note, he
accused Democrats and others who
question his motives for invading
Iraq of trying to “rewrite history.”
At the same time, there was a lit
tle scuffle going on in Washington
about the literal rewriting of history.
In an Oct. 31 press conference,
NBC’s David Gregory put forth the
following statement as a precursor to
a question posed to White House
Press Secretary Scott McClellan:
“Whether there’s a question of le
gality, we know for a fact that there
was involvement. We know that Karl
Rove, based on what he and his
lawyer have said, did have a conver
sation about somebody who Patrick
Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of
the Central Intelligence Agency. We
know that Scooter Libby also had
conversations.”
To which Scott McClellan replied,
“That’s accurate.”
But when the transcript showed
up on www.wbitehouse.gov, curi
ously enough, it had McClellan re
sponding by saying “I don’t think
that’s accurate.”
You would think this would be an
easy enough mistake to correct. Sev
eral other independent transcribers
including Congressional Quarterly
and Federal News Service heard it
right and wrote it down correctly.
There is also a tape on which Mc
Clellan’s words are clearly audible.
But for some reason, the White
House refuses to accept its error.
ARMY Firm
RHETORIC CHECK
Like it always does, the White
House has vowed to “stand by their
position." They have even gone so far
as to contact news organizations to
ask them to change their transcripts.
The problem is, nobody else heard
the “I don’t think” part of McClel
lan’s statement. While “I don’t
think” is not entirely an unbeliev
able statement coming from the
mouthpiece of the administration,
it certainly does not belong in this
transcript.
What amazes me is how Dana
Perino, spokeswoman for the Office
of the Press Secretary and president,
can just keep lying. There are several
written accounts that prove her
wrong, and people can hear the
truth for themselves. The video is
available for free on the Center for
American Progress Web site,
www.americanprogress.org. It was
also played on NPR. Perino, howev
er, insists that the transcript is cor
rect because “the White House ste
nographer was in the room and I
was in the room,” and they both
heard “I don’t think that’s accurate.”
Well, maybe they aren’t lying.
Maybe they’re crazy. Or maybe they
are so brainwashed with loyalty that
they hear only what they want to
hear, and occasionally a little more.
This could be the result of the re
cently mandated ethics refresher
courses for the White House staff.
After Plamegate, all White House
staff members were instructed to
take ethics classes in which they
learned what is OK and not OK to
give the press. Apparently, if you
mess up and tell them too much, the
ethical thing to do is to go back and
change the transcripts.
Newsweek on Nov. 21 reported that
after reviewing the tapes, McClellan
said he would request that the stenog
raphers “take another look.” He
added, “if there’s something wrong,
we’ll correct it immediately.”
Well, I just checked, and the
White House version still says “I
don’t think that’s accurate.”
So, if Scott McClellan says one
thing and the official record taken by
the White House says another, isn’t
the administration rewriting history?
Also, a piece in Saturday’s Washing
ton Post noted when Bush claimed in
his Veteran’s Day speech that Congress
saw the same intelligence as he did be
fore the war, and that independent
commissions have concluded the ad
ministration did not misrepresent intel
ligence, the president might not have
been telling the whole truth.
Basically, reporters Dana Milbank
and Walter Pincus replied in unison:
“I don’t think that’s accurate.”
The White House responded to
the article, which pointed out that
obviously the president and his staff
saw volumes more intelligence than
the House and Senate did, with a
terse one-pager distributed to the
entire White House press core.
Basically, the White House is
“standing by their position.”
Just who is really rewriting histo
ry here? Is it the people who call for
honesty and accountability in gov
ernment, or is it the propaganda-dis
seminating, talking-points-repeating,
ethically-challenged, and altogether
dishonest powers that be?
afeth@ daily emerald, com
INBOX
Animal right's activists plan
on protesting with produce
Winter’s on its way, and it’s time to
put the freeze on fur.
Tomatoes emblazoned with stickers
encouraging shoppers to “throw me at
a fur-wearer” have been cropping up in
produce aisles. The popular plump red
fruit that until now has been known
mainly as a harmless ingredient in
spaghetti sauce is stirring up the most
controversy in its history since the “Is it
a vegetable or a fruit?” flap.
Whether you call them tomatoes or
to-mah-toes, these veggies are seeing
red over cruelty to animals.
Emerald Columnist Amy Feth cannot
remain oblivious to the fact that caring
people find fur clothing sickening and
sad (“Free to wear fur,” ODE Oct. 26).
Ms. Feth, in this day and age, knowing
what we know about how animals
have their necks broken or are electro
cuted, drowned or beaten for every fur
coat or cuff, it takes an astonishingly
heartless and greedy person to stand up
in front of the city and promote this
kind of animal abuse.
Fur-wearers be warned: Vigilante
veggies are ready to paint the town red.
If you still wear fur — despite the fact
that animals are bludgeoned, electro
cuted, poisoned, gassed, shot and have
their necks broken just so you can look
old, fat, or really cheap — you’d better
be prepared to meet your ‘mater. No
mink stole or raccoon wrap is safe from
a pulpy projectile that’s gone to seed.
For more information, please visit
PETA’s Web site FurIsDead.com.
Curtis Taylor
Eugene
ExxonMobil not interested
in environmental awareness
In the past year, many of us have
commented on the brutality of gas
prices. Individual oil companies
are choosing to rip off consumers
and destroy the environment. One
single company is at the root of
many of the problems in this
massive, market-dominating oil
industry: ExxonMobil.
ExxonMobil is one of the most prof
itable companies on the planet ($25
billion in ’04), so wouldn’t you hope
it would return a portion of its income
toward research in renewable energy?
Nope. What about helping fund re
search on vehicle emissions and their
effect on climate change? Not a
chance. Even worse, the company is
proved to have spent $15 million since
1998 on confusing the public as to
what exactly causes global warming
(otherwise known as “junk science”).
With such a high net income, they
wouldn’t possibly consider drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
would they? Once again, wrong! Of
the top oil companies, ExxonMobil is
the only one still intensely lobbying to
drill in the Refuge.
Please consider all this when fill
ing your tank next time. A difference
can be made. Exxposeexxon.com for
more information.
Sean Mis
University student
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY
Letters to ttie editor and guest commentanes 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 venfication. The Emerald reserves the n#it to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald.
■ Editorial
FDA biases
no reason to
block access
to Plan B
Emergency contraception, also known as the
“morning after pill” or Plan B, has become an im
portant tool for many college women to help pre
vent unplanned pregnancies. Effective if used up
to 72 hours after unprotected intercourse, Plan B
is the first progestin-only emergency contracep
tive to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, according to the University
Health Center, which prescribes the pill.
Emergency contraception is relatively available
to women here at the University. But its status as
a prescription drug limits other women’s access
to this helpful form of birth control; in May 2004,
the acting director for the FDA’s Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research rejected an attempt by
the pill’s manufacturer to make Plan B available
over-the-counter, citing safety concerns.
Yet this month, the Government Accountability
Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Con
gress, concluded in a report that the FDA’s deci
sion ran counter to accepted protocol. We are
pleased by this revelation, and we hope it will
lead to the FDA to make Plan B more accessible
to women everywhere.
The report outlines several disturbing and “un
usual” aspects of the FDA’s decision, indicating
that certain FDA officials’ personal biases affected
it. Foremost, the report states that the acting di
rector’s decision was “novel” and different from
the way 67 proposed prescription-to-OTC deci
sions were made by the FDA from 1994 to 2004.
According to the report, he said his concerns
about the potential for “risky behaviors among
younger adolescents resulting from increased ac
cess to Plan B” influenced his decision to put the
application on the fast-track to nowhere.
No contraceptives, either over-the-counter or
prescription, approved by the FDA have age re
strictions, according to the report. Further, the
FDA has not required any pediatric studies for
past approvals.
Moreover, some FDA staff allege that “they
were told by high-level management that the Plan
B OTC switch application would be denied
months before staff had completed their reviews
of the application. ” Officials deny the allegations,
with one saying the agency was “tending” or
“thinking of going” toward rejecting the request.
High-ranking FDA officials who reviewed the
application to change the pill’s status also did not
sign the decision for Plan B because they dis
agreed with it, according to the report.
These deviations from standard policy suggest
the acting director and others were personally in
vested in preventing teenage girls from engaging
in sexual activity. Such moralistic logic has no
place in a government regulatory agency.
We certainly condemn unprotected sex that
physically or emotionally endangers either part
ner. But present rates of teen pregnancy and abor
tion suggest that young people continue to en
gage in unprotected sexual activity. Making Plan
B more accessible might cause some people to
engage in more risky behavior, but we shouldn’t
prevent responsible teenagers, or anyone else,
from having access to this contraceptive.
CORRECTION
Because of an editor's error in "Richards shines in Oregon
defeat," published in Monday’s sports section, Chelsea
Wagner was misidentified at the beginning of the article as
Chelsea Richards. The headline refers to Gabrielle
Richards.
The Emerald regrets the error.
As part of International Education Week, the 7 p.m. film
on Thursday is now scheduled to be shown in PLC 180,
according to updated information from the International
Resource Center.