Monologue________________
Drugs, professional sports
make unhealthy couple
By Doug Vaughan
Editor in Chief
The least probable place a person would
expect drug problems to occur would be on a
basketball court, baseball dugout or sidelines.
But that doesn’t mean they’re not occurring.
America’s so called “pastime,” baseball,
along with its other companion professional
sports have been infected with their portion of
drug scandals. Yes, we are talking about the
superstars, you know, all the little kids’ idols.
The most recent scandal was in baseball.
Three Kansas City Royals pleaded guilty to
cocaine-related charges, the wonder drug which
comedian Richard Pryor refers to as “Gods
way of telling you you’re making too much
money.” With plea bargaining, the charges
were reduced to misdemeanor status. What has
the league done as a result? Nothing so far.
Rehabilitation programs have been set up
in almost every professional team sport, but
that does not seem to aid the athletes. But then
why confess your problem, it might just en
danger your six, maybe seven, digit salary.
The National Basketball Association has
finally set up a program that all other sports
should make note of. It allows any player to
seek help, without punishment, for any
chemical abuse problem before December 31,
1983. Same as the other leagues, right? Not
quite. After that date, drug involvement can br
ing a permanent ban from playing. This was
not a management decision, but the players
union helped design the program and stood
strong behind it.
An athlete is not the typical person that
drugs are associated with, especially a profes
sional. Yet it has hit the best of them, and will
continue to until stiffer penalties will deter
them. It also is not just limited to one sport, it
has hit virtually all of them.
Professional athletes are looked up to by
more than just kids. They are looked on as the
picture of health. Drugs are one thing that
should not be associated with them.
* ALRIGHT? ALRIGHT? Abe. Lincoln ceas i sanwaif"
Rate payers may pay for WPPSS 'whoops'
By Shelley Ball
News Editor
It’s that time of year
again. The time when people’s
utility bills will skyrocket, due
to increased power usage for
items ranging from elect
rically-decorated Christmas
trees to raised thermostats.
At a time when there are
more raises in utility bills given
out than bonuses at the office,
most people will be relieved
when the winter months pass.
But before they do, the people
of the Northwest may end up
paying an extra 72 cents a
month on their utility bills for
power they haven’t used.
Thanks to the recommen
dation of a special committee,
appointed by Northwest
governors to come up with a
solution to the Washington
Public Power Supply System’s
(WPPSS) financial mess, this
increase could become a reali
ty for the next 30 years if it
receives congressional ap
proval.
The committee’s recom
mendation, one among several
issued earlier this month, calls
for a 30-year regional sur
charge on all Northwest elec
tricity sales, including those to
California, as a way to help
pay off the $2.25 billion in
bonds sold to build WPPSS
plants 4 and 5, the contribu
tion of which was terminated
in 1982.
Under the committee’s
plan the bondholders of
plants 4 and 5, about 75,000,
will get from 15 to 36 cents on
the dollar. In other words, the
people of the Northwest are
going to be paying for a
mistake that was not their
fault. Does this sound fair?
Hardly.
The increase is only 72
cents a month (it had earlier
been reported at $2). Gover
nor Victor Atiyeh has been
reported as “generally
favorable” to the proposal,
mainly because he was con
cerned about the future of
Northwest bond sales if WP
PSS was allowed to default on
its debt.
But doesn’t the principle
of the thing count, which is the
fact that we, the utility payers,
are not responsible for the
^THE PRINT, a member of the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association^
aims to be a fair and impartial journalistic medium covering the campus com
munity as thoroughly as possible. Opinions expressed in THE PRINT do not
necessarily reflect those of the College administration, faculty, Associated
Student Government or other members of THE PRINT. THE PRINT is a
weekly publication distributed each Wednesday except for finals week.
Clackamas Community College, 19600 S. Molalla Avenue, Oregon City,
u Oregon 97045.
WPPSS fiasco? We are not to
blame for the failure of com
pleting the $24 billion con
struction of five nuclear
plants, so why should we have
to pay for it?
WPPSS is definitely one
of the biggest “whoops” af
fecting the Northwest today.
Its previous default is con-
sidered the largest in bond
history, and even if the sur
charge is imposed, it is not
known if and when any of the
plants will be completed and
ready to operate, the system is
so far in debt.
Because WPPSS is greatly
in debt appears to be the
reason why a regional sur-
charge was proposed. After
all, so much money will be
needed to wipe away this em
barrassing situation that it’s
going to have to take a massive
effort, hence massive amounts
of people with utility in
creases, to accomplish it.
The things people do for
progress.
Letter to editor
Science, Creation unequal
Dear Editor,
Regarding the November
16 article on the Creationism
lecture by Dr. Chittick: I per
sonally don’t care whether
students
“believe
in
evolution.” However, I think
it is important that they
understand that the account of
Creation as given in the Book
of Genesis is not and can not
be supported by science.
Science is not “what some
scientists think.” Rather, it is
defined as “a set of activities
and habits of mind aimed at
contributing to an organized,
universally valid, and testable
body of knowledge about
natural phenomena.” Since
science is limited to natural ex
planations, it has no way of
dealing with supernatural ex
planations. Scientific methods
cannot tell us anything (pro or
con) about the existence or ac
tion of God.
I would also like to res
pond to Dr. Chittick’s allega
tion that “science is dying”
because scientists are lying and
falsifying data to get ahead. It
is true that there have been
some scandals in which scien
tists were exposed as having
faked their data. No enterprise
is perfect. However, honesty
and respect for reporting the
data without distortion is an
absolute value in science, and
to break this obligation is to
show that an individual is
completely unfit to do science.
As part of the scientific
method, any research must be
subject to replication by per
sons other than the original in
vestigator. Since efforts will be
made to replicate all non
trivial findings, errors or
frauds are bound eventually to
be revealed. That is why scien
tific cheating is so rare, and so
notorious when it does occur.
If a student is concerned
with the Creationism con
troversy, I suggest that he or
she read the first two chapters
of Genesis. These chapters
present two different versions
of Creation; they both cannot
be literally true. If one is
literally not true, possibly both
are literally not true. I believe
that the stories of Creation are
to be read for their larger
messages—God is the Creator,
his creation is good, and man
and woman are to be loving
companions. Trying to fit the
details of the Genesis stories
into a scientific framework
reduces the grandeur of the
stories and does a disservice to
both science and religion.
Yours truly,
Marlene Tufts
Psychology Instructor
YÛÜ
' 11 I 1 KA Zk bJ
/ a
my
S orry
thought
you WERE
ERNIE..
MDÍIAL •
Clackamas Community College
DOfJT W4T6H too
MUCH SES ¿¡MS.
5T/RE ET.
Page 2