Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Eugene weekly. (Eugene, Oregon) 1993-current | View Entire Issue (July 31, 2003)
TO THE EDITOR BY JANE K. CRAMER with me and was waiting for the day he could get his driver’s license. Ian Kenneth Cate, Jr. was 17 years old. He was waiting for his 18th birthday to get his car, go to college, and start his life. On Sept. 20, 2002, Ian borrowed a bike, rode around the block, and was hit by a woman driving a Chevy Blazer. Ian died that day. The woman was able to come after me, Ian’s mother, for a rental car, lost wages, and damages. Ian was not a pedestrian because he was on a bike, yet he was not protected be- cause he had no insurance. Everyone needs to be protected, even kids and people on bikes. In loving memory of Ian Kenneth Cate Jr. Laura K. Horton Eugene OUR RIGHT TO RIVERS It is interesting, as a concerned citizen and voter, to read a column written by one of our state senators every week in EW. Tony Corcoran gives us an insider’s view of the wrangling and horse trading that goes on be- hind the scenes at a legislative session. He often decries those who sell out their con- stituents by voting for bad bills in order to get their own legislation passed. What he doesn’t do, however, is let us know when he is doing the same thing. When a special interest bill (SB293) ap- peared in the Senate Land Use Committee dur- ing the current session that would have the ef- fect of stripping Oregon citizens’ rights to ac- cess the state’s navigable streams below the high water mark, a large coalition of river users banded together to fight it. After public outcry, many senators — including Corcoran — told their constituents they would vote against it. The bill ground to a halt in committee. But the big money interests behind The Cattlemen’s Association, The Farm Bureau and real estate lobbyists won’t give up so eas- ily. Barring the public could have tremendous financial benefit to landowners along public waterways, and they have been attempting to pass a restrictive bill for years. Never mind that the bill that made Oregon a state guaran- tees all U.S. citizens the right to free access on all available navigable streams in the state. As the Senate runs out of time to do business, lots of backroom deals are being made to get pet legislation passed. The powerful senator who works for the Cattlemen’s Association, et al has given the old bill (SB293) a new name (SB928) and it has turned up in the Rules Committee with a bunch of co-sponsors. Some of these co-sponsors — such as Corcoran — were previously committed to vote “no” on the old bill. While the new one does have some slight revisions, this bill is still a stab in the back to anyone who loves to boat, raft or fish on Oregon’s many beautiful rivers. Ephraim Payne Eugene LETTERS POLICY: We welcome letters on all topics and will print as many as space allows. Please limit length to 250 words, keep submissions to once a month, and include your address and phone number for our files. E- mail to editor@eugeneweekly.com (please put “letters” in the subject line), fax to 484-4044, or mail to 1251 Lincoln, Eugene 97401. Oregon Family Dental, PC Welcomes Stephanie Coursey, RDH Now accepting new hygiene patients “Providing quality care with a gentle touch.” 344-7900 • 11th & Chamers • Eugene Silver Jewelry Yoga Mats Meditation Cushions Goddess Statues Ethnic decorative items Scented candles & incense Books, Cards, Tarot Journals RUBY CHASM 152 W 5th @ Charnelton Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki Fear drives U.S. policy today. O n Aug. 6, 1945 the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb nick- named “Little Boy” on Hiroshima Japan, killing more than 130,000 people. Three days later “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki, killing or injuring over 100,000 people. The American public rejoiced at the news of these bombings because it meant the victorious end of a horrific war. Victory using nuclear weapons was possible then, but much has changed over the past 58 years. People now look back on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and vow “never again” — never should any country wage a nuclear war. Nuclear war is now unthinkable for almost all people for two clear reasons: First, powerful states today have hydrogen bombs, measured in megatons — millions of tons of TNT — a thousand times larger than the bombs of 1945. A single 10-megaton bomb would completely destroy a large city such as New York, killing millions of people instantly. Second, nuclear war is unthinkable because the U.S. lost its nuclear monop- oly. The Soviet Union quickly developed nuclear weapons, soon followed by Britain, France and China. Eventually, powerful nuclear states became mutually deterred — they did not attack each other for fear of suffering nuclear retalia- tion. Today, only eight states possess nuclear weapons, defying repeated predic- tions of extensive nuclear proliferation. This reality has eased most people’s fears of an all-out nuclear war — a fear widely shared during the Cold War. However, many people still fear a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a terrorist group. Extreme fear of nuclear proliferation drove the Bush administration’s unprecedented policy of waging a pre-emptive war on Iraq. Fear also drives the new policy to create new nuclear weapons, “bunker busters,” intended for use in a future nuclear war against terrorist hideouts. Fear drives the new all- out push to quickly build a national missile defense system. This system will not be good for defense since any aggressor could easily knock out its radars with a small conventional or terrorist attack. Instead, this “defense” system is planned as useful for backing up a first strike against “rogues” in a future nuclear confrontation. These policies that fearfully plan for waging an aggres- sive nuclear war are incompatible with policies aimed at avoiding nuclear war. C oncurrently the U.S. pursues a policy called “Cooperative Threat Reduction.” This program has helped Russia destroy more than 400 missile silos; eliminate more than 1,400 ballistic missiles, cruise mis- siles, submarines, and strategic bombers; eliminate 150 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium; and support approximately 50,000 weapons scien- tists in peaceful research work. This is tremendous progress, but much more needs to be done. These efforts focus directly on securing the most likely source for a possi- ble terrorist nuclear weapon — the insecure arsenal of the former Soviet Union. However, these highly successful efforts are incompatible with the plans for building and using new nuclear weapons, and waging pre-emptive war. First, these efforts compete for funding and attention, and have not fared well. Second, if the U.S. argues it has a right to wage nuclear war unilaterally and builds new nuclear weapons to do so, this undercuts arguments that nuclear war is unthinkable and nuclear weapons are not useful. Other states feel they need to respond to these policies by building their own nuclear weapons rather than cooperatively giving up their nuclear programs. In fact, today North Korea and Iran appear to be quickly building their nuclear arse- nals, and it appears much of the world sympathizes with these states. Instead of condemning these states, many have quietly argued that North Korea and Iran probably do need nuclear weapons for defense since the U.S. is openly threatening to unilaterally invade them. The U.S. can fearfully plan to wage nuclear war, or the U.S. can continue to work to avoid nuclear war, but it cannot do both at the same time. Jane K. Cramer is an assistant professor of political science at UO. She teaches and does research on inter- national security. A community gathering is planned Aug. 6 to remember the victims of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to strengthen the campaign to rid all governments of their existing nuclear weapons and stop the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons systems. The event will be at Alton Baker Park, shelter #2, beginning with a 6 pm potluck, followed at 7:15 by music, poetry and educa- tional presentations. EUGENE • 344-4074 M-Sa 11-5:30 JULY 31, 2003 7
