Monologue & Dialogue
Idle Hands
By J. Dana Haynes
Okay, the elections are over, and truth to tell
there were no great surprises this year. Most of the
races ended up pretty much the way the polls
predicted, with one notable exception.
Governor Vic Atiyeh was reelected in a land
slide over challenger Ted Kulongoski. Before last
Friday, it looked like the two combatants were tied
neck-and-neck, and up until Tuesday, it was a horse
race.
And yet, come 10:00 p.m. Wednesday, Atiyeh
was so comfortably entrenched in the lead that both
he and Kulongoski made their acceptance and con-
session speeches, respectively.
It came as a surprise to most everybody. This is,
after all, an off-year (non-presidential) election. In
the past, the party in power, in this case the
Republicans, have usually lost ground to the opposi
tion party, in this case the Democrats. Thus it is that
a great many analysts were predicting Democrat
Kulongoski to pull ahead and squeeze through for a
victory. Or at the very least, for Atiyeh to ride the
coat tails of Reagan’s “Stay The Course” adver
tisements and sneak by for reelection.
So what happened? In the past week, I’ve heard
two radio newsmen and one television anchorman
imply that the outcome bodes ill toward the future of
the Democratic party in Oregon. That perhaps the
GOP is here to stay.
Nonsense. Slick Vic’s re-coronation had
nothing to do with any popular mandates nor course
staying, as the President’s Wall Street advertising
agencies would have us believe.
The plain truth is that Kulongoski ran a crummy
campaign. From the very beginning, the two politi
cians and their campaign point-men opted for a
policy of mud slinging, the likes of which I don’t
remember ever seeing before.
However, the people of Oregon (take a bow, all)
are a tad more politically savvy than the rest of the
country and it didn’t take the voters long to get tired
of the mutual hate society.
Now Atiyeh may be a wee bit more dull than a
spam-on-white-bread-sandwich, but he’s no one’s
fool. He and his people heard the rumblings of
discontent and backed off the negative rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Kulongoski kept right on slinging
spitballs. For nearly two months, the airwaves were
saturated with Ted’s perfectly coiffed good looks,
calm demeanor, and every byte of muck he could
draw fourth. True or false isn’t the point. Kulongoski
did everything except accuse-Atiyeh of being a gay
Nazi bubble-dancer.
This was the first election I can remember
wherein I voted against one fellow, rather than for
the other guy. Atiyeh never impressed me one way or
t’other, but at least, in this race, I knew where he
stood. With Kulongoski, all I knew about him was
where he didn’t stand. And that’s not enough to give
the man the reigns for four years.
So the moral of the story is that Victor Atiyeh is
in office. No mandates were given, no death knell
was trumped for the Demo’s.
Their candidate simply didn’t give us any good
reason to vote for him.
THE PRINT, a member of the Oregon Newspaper Publishers
Association, aims to be a fair and impartial journalistic medium
covering the campus community as thoroughly as possible. Opi
nions expressed in THE PRINT do not necessarily reflect those of
the College administration, faculty, Associated Student Govern
ment or other members of THE PRINT.
Office: Trailer B; telephone: 657-8400, ext. 309,310
Editor In Chief: J. Dana Haynes
News Editor: Doug Vaughan
Arts Editor: Brett Bigham
Sports Editor: Tracy M. Sumner
Photo Editor: Wanda Percival
Copy Editor: Kristi Blackman
Staff Writers: Victoria Archila, Shelley Ball, Kari Gassaway, Doris
Hatcher, Tom Jeffries, Etta Leonard, Walt McAllister, F. T. Morris
Staff Photographers: Roberta Ellsworth, Duane Hiersche, Troy
Maben, Joel Miller
Business Manager: Joan Seely
Typesetter: Teresa A. Hannaford
Advisor: Sara Wichman
page 2
Abortion editorial vehementaly opposed
To the Editor:
I feel strongly compelled
to reply to the amazingly
fatuous editorial written by
your sports editor, Mr.
Sumner. First, I should like to
concede that he is correct on
one point—his commentary
was not well received by all. I
am one who objects. As a
single woman with in
dependence and a career in
mind, I must support the
choice of individual women to
exercise control over their
bodies and their lives. Women
have never had this choice
before. There are those of us
who have no intention of losing
that freedom now. Obviously,
Mr. Sumner finds it easy to
criticize something which he
will never have to experience
first-hand.
I wish to point out that the
removal of public funding for
therapeutic abortions will not
stop abortion. It will only
change the quality of abortions.
If a woman wants an abortion,
she will get one. And if her
situation is desperate enough,
she will submit to the horrors of
a back alley butcher or try to
self-abort with a coat hanger or
some other equally loathsome
method. Would this be better?
Shall we add the lives of full-
grown women to the list of
“murdered infants?” Perhaps
“suicide” is a better word than
“abortion?”
Let’s be brutally honest
about another issue. There is
no such thing as The Sanctity
of Life. I found your referral to
the Israeli army and the PLO
ironically amusing in this con
text. It’s completely moral to
wipe out women, children, old
men and grandmothers in the
name of God, Country or
some other patriotic B.S., but
God forbid we should let a
woman terminate an unwanted
pregnancy. I ask you—what’s
the difference if a child dies in a
abortion clinic or as gun-fodder
for some vague political issue?
How can one be more accep
table than the other?
I was also incensed at Mr.
Sumner’s creative writing con
cerning the “face of the victim.”
Obviously he has spent more
time looking at Right To Life
brochures than his biology
books. Most therapeutic abor
tions take place before the
twelfth week of pregnancy. At
that stage, the human fetus is
indistinguishable from any
other mammalian fetus. To say
the “the face of the victim is
grossly twisted and contorted in
agony over the fatal violations
on its body by the implements
of torture used to perform the
abortion” is the most over-
dramatic writing I have ever
seen. There isn’t much of what
you could call a “face” at
twelve weeks to twist and con
tort.
True, the unborn baby is
helpless. But won’t women be
the same if abortion rights cure
revoked? What about the
woman whose birth control
methods fail, as they can do?
What about the woman who
already has a family too large
to adequately support? Or the
woman who becomes pregnant
at 40 or 50 years of age?
The statement that abor
tion is “an easy way out of the
consequences of one’s actions”
is the most outrageous thing I
have ever read. And to con
sider a decision for an abortion
a “whim” is ridiculous. Abor-
tion is never an easy decision
for anyone, It is expensive,
degrading, painful and
physiologically upsetting,
without even considering what
“moral” issues the woman may
be contemplating. It is often the
emotional turning point in a
male-female relationship, in
cluding those within the sancti
fy of marriage. Promiscuity has
little to do with abortion.
Women who are promiscuous
are often adept at avoiding
pregnancy. It is just as often
young, sexually-ignorant girls
and adult women who undergo
the procedure. To name pro
miscuity as the major cause of
abortion is unfounded.
Now I have a rhetorical
question to ask Mr. Sumner:
What do you propose we do
with all these unwanted-but-
nonetheless-delivered babies?
Give them up for adoption?
That’s a nice, easy solution.
But once again, let’s be
realistic. Black marketeering
has made adoption a joke.
Why wait years to adopt a baby
if you can buy one within days?
And why give away an un
wanted baby if you can make a
little money for your time? The
authorities can’t stop people
from selling their unwanted
children now. Can you imagine
what it would be like if every
pre'gnant woman was forced to
deliver her child?
And what about the
woman who delivers the baby?
“Tough luck, kid?” “That’s
what you get for being pro
miscuous?” “Hope you can
pick up your career again?”
“Try not to think about it?”
To say that abortion can
be stopped is to say that the
human race will someday be
perfect. Unwanted pregnancies
will occur. As long as there are
people who prefer to be ig
norant about their own sexuali
ty, there will be a need for
abortions. As long as science
drags its feet at perfecting birth
control methods, there will be a
need for abortions. As long as
there are people who try to
hide the truth under a pile of
“morals”, there will be a need
for abortions. And as long as
there are deranged individuals
who can get away with rape
and incest, there will be a need
for abortions.
I sincerely hope that Mr.
Sumner also learns to see life
as it is and not only as it should
be if he hopes to be an effective
journalist,
Yours truly,
Joette L. Rose
Vohs letter draws fire
because Dale feels that show
ing such acts being inflicted on
I am writing this letter in his fellow humans is poor
response to Steve Vohs reply entertainment (and daring to
to a letter written by Dale say so) that his opinion is called
“self righteous censorship?”
Seale.
It seems to me that the fact
Let me start,out by saying
that I have never advocated that such a large number of
censorship of the press (except people enjoy seeing such
during wartime). I believe that nauseating behavior, is a strong
everyone should be allowed to condemnation on the human
express their opinion (even race.
Mr. Vohs seems to apply a
though I might disagree with
double standard to opinions
it).
My question to Mr. Vohs that disagree with his own. Mr.
is, why is Dale’s opinion con Vohs considers the movie
sidered advocation of censor entertaining (that’s his right),
ship? Today opinions are ex but since Dale happens to
pressed by communists, nazis, disagree, Dale is guilty of being
homosexuals, murderers, drug a “self righteous censor.”
Mr. Vohs considers Dale
abusers and racists. This is con
sidered “free expression.” Why as a self-appointed critic of the
is it that when someone who is arts with self written creden
a Christian expresses their opi tials. Now what seems to make
nion it is called “self righteous Mr. Vohs’ credentials as a critic
of the arts any more valid than
censorship?”
It seems to me that Dale Dale’s (or anyone else’s)?
Mr.
Vohs
should
was merely expressing his opi
nion that the movie in question remember that those “certain
(“Halloween”) was nauseating. self righteous factions” (his opi
Having seen the movie I agree. nion of Christians) have the
“Halloween” depicts peo same right to express an opi
ple being brutally ripped, gaoug- nion concerning the entertain
ed, stabbed and killed in ment value of a film as he does.
revolting detail. Why is it that Michael Houston
To the Editor:
Clackamas Community College