|
Letters to the Editor
Writing skills needed
While I wholeheartedly agree with Samantha Pace's editorial on the need for greater understanding of the sciences, it is important to recognize that many of us in engineering and sciences dangerously ignore liberal arts, leading to an appalling lack of writing and communication skills. While some technical majors deride College of Liberal Arts as the new home for failing IT students, I can say that it has been my experience that my liberal arts coursework has contributed as much or more to my career advancement as the bachelor's degree I earned in Chemistry.
While IT taught me what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is all about, my liberal arts classes taught me how to communicate effectively as well as write persuasively, vital tools in today's team-oriented workforce. Just as important as the ability to understand the essentials of science is to be able to capably share your knowledge with others.
Mark Snyder, Alumnus, 1997
Clinton not dishonorable
As for that Clinton editorial in the Jan. 22 Daily, I would have to say that I disagree with you on several points, but one most of all. I would take issue with your claim that Bill Clinton brought "dishonor" to the office of president, if indeed you can even call it that. Some men cheat on their wives. It is certainly not a pleasant thought, but it is never the less an unavoidable fact. When Clinton cheated on his wife with another woman or women, he dishonored himself, not the office of president. I happen to be of the humble opinion that the honorable office of the president cannot lose any honor over something so petty as adultery, or else it would have lost all its honor long before now.
In case anyone was unaware, George Washington, the first president of this country, owned a number of slaves. I also happen to be of the opinion that enslaving another human being is far more dishonorable than cheating on your wife. There are those that would disagree, I know, but I can't help it. In fact, not only did Washington own slaves, he also had affairs with them as well. He was the first man to hold the office of president, and yet the office seemed to retain its honor. The honor survived even though hundreds of other presidents had affairs, including Jefferson, FDR, and JFK, to name a few. If it is possible to dishonor a government position by behaving badly or "dishonorably," then there isn't a single government position which has any honor left!
If Clinton made any real mistake, it was being president in an era of absurdly zealous media coverage. If no one had found out about his indiscretions until after he was out of office, he would have gone down in history as being a charismatic ladies man, just like JFK, instead of the sex-crazed deviant he is often portrayed to be.
Susan Woehrle, General College
Abortion rights logic flawed
This is in response to Bree Dalager's letter to the editor concerning abortion in the Jan 18 Daily. Ms. Dalager stated that "while a zygote is human, it is not a human." I was overwhelmed by her clear stance on the issue, but I read on. She argued that "vast number(s) of pregnancies end in miscarriage" and that "the existence of a zygote does not guarantee ... a viable human being," so fetuses should not be granted the right to life. Keep in mind that she backed her miscarriage statement with precise figures such as "between 16 and 50 percent."
Allow me to borrow Ms. Dalager's watertight logic and counter her argument by stating that between zero and 100 percent of live births end in "viable human beings." What of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), premature birth complications and after-effects of troubled pregnancies, Ms. Dalager? Surely such factors prevent newborns from becoming "viable human beings," so why not deny newborns the same basic human right that Ms. Dalager likes to deny fetuses?
The next time Ms. Dalager chooses to attack the pro-life position with a claim on defining "viable human beings," she should first find some viable logic; which I believe can't be seen through the rose-tinted glasses of the pro-choice mentality.
Tyler D. Richter, Garage Logician
Personal responsibility
My intention in responding to David Parker's January 16 opinion piece was not, as Kyle Wolfram asserted Friday, to "belittle" tobacco companies. I was merely using the tobacco industry as a counter-example to what I saw as incredibly poor and conceivably dangerous logic used in Parker's editorial.
Parker essentially argues that if someone is wealthy, then this person must be providing society with a beneficial service in order to acquire this wealth. By Parker's reasoning, all wealth is justifiably generated, regardless of means. Perhaps I should have used drug lords or mafia bosses or even politicians (whose contributions to society are often dubious at best) as examples of ill-acquired wealth. And, yes, the politicians were meant to be a joke.
Nonetheless, as the brother of a 13-year-old girl, I find it hard to stomach Parker's argument for the acceptance of the tobacco industry's part in raising the standard of living, knowing that it intentionally targets children of my sister's age with a multimillion dollar advertising budget in order finance its BMWs.
Wolfram expresses doubt about my belief in personal responsibility. What about the personal responsibility of executives building fortunes through the propagation of something that has been proven to take the lives of millions each year--be it cigarettes, concealable automatic handguns, or a host of others things?
Chris P. Buonamia, College of Liberal Arts
|
