Peter Sorenson shows he is incapable of sensitivity
I was appalled upon reading in last Wednesday’s paper that Oregon gubernatorial candidate Pete Sorenson would ask Governor Ted Kulongoski to direct the Oregon Lottery into prohibiting the use of the federal disaster relief checks for gambling purposes (ODE Sept. 28, “Governor’s challenger urges gambling ban”).
I question Sorenson’s motivation, and feel his actions display a profound thoughtlessness and insensitivity for victims of Hurricane Katrina, a national tragedy.
As Ellen Cedergreen, founder of Eugene Cares, an organization providing assistance to hurricane victims in Lane County, indicated in the news brief: “The majority of people I’ve met are just looking to get back on their feet…They’re not spending their money on anything other than trying to survive.”
Sorenson should apologize, not only to hurricane victims, but to his Oregon constituency as well. Sorenson’s sentiments are misplaced, and he is obviously incapable of displaying the regard and sensitivity inherent to the position that he seeks.
Adam Howard
University Graduate Student Gates’ presentation leaves much desired
I went to the University Convocation on Sunday to hear Sylvester James Gates Jr. speak about string theory. It was a disappointing presentation. There were two things that were disappointing: 1) Gates didn’t spend more time speaking about his area of expertise, and 2) Gates spent too much time speaking about something he apparently has not researched.
Gates implied that the percentage of scientists who believe in intelligent design is about the same as the percentage of ordinary people, of the general public, who believe in the flat earth. This is not accurate. Nature, a scientific journal, reported in 1998 that there are a number of scientists that believe in intelligent design. Additionally, Nature reported that between 35 and 40 percent of scientists believe in a God that communicates to people.
I do, however, agree with Gates’ opinion that it is certainly time for the scientific community to openly debate the intelligent design theory.
Brian Michaels
Science teacher, Springfield
Journalism ethics is addressed incorrectly
Bivins got a deserved honor when he made a State Department speaking tour of Jamaica last summer (ODE Sept. 29, “Journalism teacher returns from lecturing in Jamaica”). But the meaning of his trip was spoiled when journalism dean Tim Gleason overstepped himself again, saying Bivins’ invitation “reflected his expertise in journalism ethics.”
Tom likely has expertise in the area, but it is meaningless when he joins the dean in hypocritically addressing journalism ethics at a school that awards degrees to students majoring in something far from journalism: public relations.
George Beres
Eugene
Inbox
Daily Emerald
October 3, 2005
0
More to Discover