By
Donate your soles to souls
Dear Editor,
Do you have old shoes collecting dust in your closet that you know you can't just throw away?
As part of the second annual Zappos.com WCC shoe drive, Purple Reign (the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee) is collecting used shoes for Soles4Souls, a non-profit organization that was created as a response to the 2004 tsunami that hit Southeast Asia.
Soles4Souls has already successfully donated over five and a half million pairs of shoes to those hurting both domestically and internationally.
Recently, Soles4Soles has directed their donation efforts to aid those affected by the tragic earthquakes in Hati.
The conference has already collected over 2,800 shoes to be donated to the Soles4Souls organization, which has already shipped 100,000 pairs of shoes to those affected by the quake. The last day to donate shoes is this Sunday, February 28, so we at Purple Reign are asking everyone to dig through their closets this weekend and bring their used shoes to one of the donation bins available at the dorms or in the Chiles Center.
Dan Prahl, senior, biology
Burden of proof lies with
pro-choice argument
Dear Editor,
I am very happy to report that Philosophy Professor Jeff Gauthier and I have agreed to begin a civil discourse on the issue of abortion. I believe that it would benefit the entire University of Portland community to seriously consider the same sort of open dialog so that those who advocate the choices of life and abortion can better understand the facts, values and logic that underlie each other's viewpoint.
As an early topic for discussion, I noted that Gauthier explicitly acknowledges that a genetically unique human individual life begins at conception and implicitly acknowledges an unbroken developmental continuum from conception onward. I therefore propose that it is actually abortion advocates who need to present a coherent set of facts, values and logic that demands something other than life's beginning be the time when a human individual gains the status of personhood.
Fr. Ronald Wasowski, C.S.C., environmental science professor
Bottled water ban requires
lifestyle change
Dear Editor,
In light of all the water related articles and editorials (two in favor and one against) that have been published, I would just like to add to the voices of those in favor of the school ceasing to sell bottled water on campus. Not only is this an intelligent decision from an economic standpoint (why spend our money on something that is already available for free), but it is also the socially just thing to do. It sends a message to all the companies peddling bottled water to people: we do not support your socially unjust and unsustainable business practices.
This statement, however, will only be truely effective if we the student body make it so, by ceasing to buy pre-packaged bottled beverages from any vendor, not just school. We need to make the effort to use reusable containers to store all our beverages. The convenience that a prepackaged beverage offers seems to be good, but an unpolluted planet is better.
Matthew Abely, freshmen, environmental ethics and policies
The double-edged sword of the bottled water ban
Dear Editor,
I initially read the first part of the article "UP first on West Coast to ban bottled water" with excitement although as I progressed through the article I was led into a level of deep concern.
I am a life long Catholic, have a son that attends UP, have practiced Dentistry for 27 years and am part of the precedent practice based dental research program with the National Institute of Health. I have long recognized the deep concern over BPA (bisphenol A) plastics that leach from containers, including bottled water, into our bloodstreams. The concern over privatization of bottled water is one that I identify with.
While the UP decision to ban bottled water seems wise on the surface, the lack of planning around the implementation and the deference toward well researched and published literature is most disconcerting. Consider the result of this decision without realizing the far reaching impact. The removal of bottled water will leave students with only flavored drinks as a viable alternative.
The idea that bottled water is readily available at the local Freddies defies the logistics of students hauling cases of water by foot, on bikes, or on buses, let alone that sheer laziness will win out. 'Flavored drinks' sounds innocent enough but they are not. "Flavored drinks" contain 10-14 teaspoons of sugar per 12 ounce container with a highly acidic content.
Energy drinks and sports drinks also contain high levels of high fructose corn syrup that spike the damaging affects and are a major contributor to a two-fold increase in tooth decay and diabetes in the U.S. population in the last five years.
Not only do they dissolve teeth nearly as quick as battery acid, they also rapidly change the body pH to acidic, requiring the body to neutralize the acid in the bloodstream using precious calcium that will not circulate and redeposit back into the bones and teeth.
Hence weak bones, osteoporosis, rampant tooth decay, fatigue and diabetes. Second, consider the overall impact on plastic containers on campus. Banning bottled water does not decrease the total plastic bottles on campus, it increases it. The bottled water consumed will be substituted with flavored drinks in plastic containers resulting in zero gain or loss.
However, when some students with vehicles do bring some limited bottled water to campus you now have a net increase in plastics at UP.
While the ban on bottled water appeared to be an innocent, ethical and well thought out decision, it will lead to silent diseases that will cost the student body more health and costs than will ever be appreciated or measured. However it will lead to a newly acquired habit of shunning water for flavored drinks that will likely last a lifetime.
Which leads me to two thought provoking questions. Will toilet paper be banned next because it directly causes negligent deforestation of our planet? And, is there an imminent vote on installing a significantly larger number of water fountains around campus anytime soon?
The first question offers facetious humor. The latter is a plea for an effective resolution to the quandary that was initiated with this ban.
Tim Robinson, DDS
