A4 • The World • Monday, July 28,2014
Editorial Board Jeff Precourt, Publisher Larry Campbell, Executive Editor
Les Bowen, Digital Editor Ron Jackimowicz, News Editor
Opinion theworldlink.com/news/opinion
Digital vs. ‘real’ reading For more than 80 years, reading in print has been as natural for me as breathing. Someone writing about one of my books — not e-books — described me as a “voracious reader.” That’s why I’ve been skeptical about the growing number of online courses that students are taking and the diverse digital reading they do on their own. How much of this kind of reading and learning, I wonder, gets and stays inside them? I’m receiving credible answers from the author of a forthcoming book that should be a must-read for all Americans concerned with having future generations skilled in critical thinking. The book, “Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World” (Oxford University Press, to be published next year), is by Naomi S. Baron, a professor of linguistics and executive director of the Center for Teaching, Research and Learning at American University. Fortunately, you can now learn much of the essence of her research from her article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “How EReading Threatens Learning in the Humanities” (July 14). NAT As the title indicates, the scope of Baron’s HENTOFF research goes beyond Columnist online courses: “With the coming of e-readers, tablets and smartphones, reading styles underwent a sea change.” In all the intense arguments about educational reform, I’ve seen very little about this “sea change” in reading and how it will affect the depth and range of thinking by future generations of Americans. Baron continues: “For the past five years, I’ve been examining the pros and cons of reading on-screen versus in print. The bottom line is that while digital devices may be fine for reading that we don’t intend to muse over or reread, text that requires what’s been called ‘deep-reading’ is nearly always better done in print ... “Digital reading also encourages distraction and invites multitasking.” Her survey research included university students here and in Germany and Japan. And “among American and Japanese subjects, 92 percent reported it was easiest to concentrate when reading in hard copy (was necessary). (The figure for Germany was 98 percent.) ... “Imagine wrestling with ‘Finnegan’s Wake’ while simultaneously juggling Facebook and booking a vacation flight.” Among the common responses she got from students regarding what they most liked about reading in print (when they had to take time for it) was: “I can write on the pages and remember the material easier,” and “It’s easier to focus.” Furthermore, “When asked what they liked least about reading on-screen, a number of Japanese students reported that it wasn’t ‘real reading,’ while respondents from all three countries complained that they ‘get distracted’ or ‘don’t absorb as much.’” Baron’s prime personal focus is the decline in in-depth digital-reading of the humanities, where readings “tend to be lengthy, intellectually weighty or both. “The challenge of digital reading for the humanities is that screens — particularly those on devices with Internet connections — undermine our encounters with meaty texts. These devices weren’t designed for focused concentration, reading slowly, pausing to argue virtually with the author, or rereading. “Rather, they are information and communication machines, best used for searching and skimming — not scrutinizing.” Think about that for a few moments: “not scrutinizing.” In other words, not examining what’s being communicated and not understanding how flimsy digital reading is. Naomi Baron anxiously turns to what must be done if reading is to be “real.” “Teachers and scholars must look beyond today’s (fashionable, speedy) career-mindedness in talking about challenges to the humanities.” And, I’d strongly add, talking about challenges to the Constitution and to educating individuals apart from collective standardized tests that negate personal scrutiny. “We need,” she emphasizes, “to think more carefully about students’ mounting rejection of long-form reading, now intensified by digital technologies that further complicate our struggle to engage students in serious text-based inquiry.” As for me, I continue to cherish physical books I can hold — that I delight in writing in, arguing with the authors and rereading as I learn more about the subjects elsewhere. I have friends who are proud of their Kindles so full of e-books.How intimately do they know each of them? From the time I was a kid, certain printed books became part of me. And I still dig daily into newspapers — yes, newspapers — with a pen, underlining surprises that challenge me and noting the names of the unfamiliar reporters so I can check their believability. I don’t dig skimming through life.
Letters to the Editor Health reasons to oppose LNG Thank you for the published opinion on LNG on July 11. There are many more reasons to object to the LNG project being in this area. There are published reports by the company about the type and amount of toxic emissions that would be spewed into our air from both the LNG plant and the electrical station that would help support it. If they list these emissions, I suspect there will actually be more than admitted to. These emissions will be blown over a large area of our county 24 hours per day, seven days a week for years. What will residents and visitors inhale, and probably become ill from, either quickly or slowly over time? For those with lung conditions, it will be a fairly quick death. Ever see a person with COPD or asthma gasping to get good air into their lungs? The ills of second-hand smoke from cigarettes have been proven for people and animals after long debates. The plant emissions would be thousands of times more, and people could not get away from them if living here. Families with children would not want to live where the air they breath is toxic. Ask any medical doctor who deals with allergies. I lived near Tacoma, Wash., while the Asarco copper smelting mill was operating, and after awhile the word was strongly sent to nearby residents to not disturb the soil in their yards where contaminants had collected, and not to let children play in their yards because of the arsenic build up there. There was a very expensive effort to clean the area after years of abuse of the air. Not only did they have the soils removed or covered, but had the lovely water way dredged to take the toxic mud from the area. Harmful contaminants will build in our soils and will be blown around by our strong winds long after the plant ceases operation. Do you want illness or death for yourself and children, or for your friends and relatives who visit you here? Retirees shudder at the probabilities and they will look elsewhere to find clean air and move from this place. Help to stop this insane project before it is constructed. Mary Lou Lovelace North Bend
Impacts ignored in camp decision Those who attended last Wednesday’s town hall meeting about the proposed 2,100 person camp near Simpson Heights sought answers: 1. What will this camp look like? 2. What infrastructure might taxpayers be asked to pay for? 3. Exactly who will occupy the camp? 4. How will the predictable results of a long-term concentration of single, itinerant constructions workers be handled? 5. How will traffic work with only a single access road and a single U.S. Highway 101 intersection? 6. Can emergency access and evacuation be assured to an isolated peninsula subject to tsunami inundation? Jordan Cove’s staff had no answers. North Bend’s police and
fire chiefs were present but not given an opportunity to offer their expertise. Though details remain unknown, in March our planning commission made one of the biggest decisions in North Bend’s history on the basis of a slide show. Seems they didn’t need facts or public input to make a decision of such importance. This attracted sharp criticism at Wednesday’s meeting: That five unelected officials made such a momentous decision with essentially no public notice, with only two citizens speaking on the issue and well before any details were made specific. How could the public’s interests have been served by shutting out public discussion of problems and their solutions? How could five individuals make a better decision than the whole of the North Bend and Coos Bay community? Besides, deciding so quickly undercut the city’s ability to negotiate with Jordan Cove for solutions to the obvious safety, congestion and behavior issues this project entails. The city did the absolute bare minimum here. It notified just nine property owners, published notice of the meeting in an obscure website not used by the public, took testimony from just two citizens, delayed the planning commission’s decision just seven days and did not involve our elected officials. Yes, the city followed the rules. But no rule prevented the city from involving its own citizens. No rule prevented the city from delaying a decision until all the facts and specifics are made known. No rule prevented the city from serving the public’s interests. By rushing this decision without public knowledge or involvement, Mayor Wetherall and the city of North Bend betrayed the trust we gave them to represent our interests. To represent us, not to make this big a decision in isolation and without our knowledge or consent. Michael Dean North Bend
Landowners kept in the dark The Pacific Connector Pipeline is the chosen route to bring natural gas from the shale oilfields of the mountain west to a not-yetbuilt natural gas compression plant at Jordan Cove on Coos Bay, just across the channel from the city of North Bend. Private pipeline developers have been granted the power of eminent domain to seize over 300 parcels of private property which lie in the path of the 230-mile Pacific Connector route. Jordan Cove developers argue in their application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that building the plant and the pipeline are in the national interest because unless foreign markets are found for U.S. natural gas, fracking in the Rockies will slow down or stop. Aside from the obvious one about exactly why it’s in our national interest for a Canadian developer to make massive profits selling U.S. gas to China, a more practical question has arisen concerning the Jordan Cove project. Developers are denying property owners along the route the ability to contact each other. Requests by property owners for the names of others along the route have been
denied because of “the threat of terrorism.” A moment’s thought makes it clear that a 100-foot wide scar on the landscape that extends for 230 miles across nearly the entire state of Oregon is not going to be very difficult for bad guys to locate. There must be another reason why the developers don’t want the property owners facing eminent domain claims to contact one another. Could it be the insultingly low prices ($300/acre) being offered for destructive easements and the prospect of having massive amounts of explosive gas running under their property? How about it Jordan Cove? Why are you preventing property owners along the pipeline, whose land you plan to seize, from contacting each other? Fergus Mclean Dexter
‘Patriots’ story unsatisfying As someone who attended the “Patriots Gathering” at Pony Village Mall in North Bend, The World newspaper article, published July 21, was very confusing to me. Neither Jody McCaffree, anyone from Simpson Heights, or anyone else opposed to LNG were presenters at the event. There were participants from outside Coos County. Our commissioners had nothing to do with the “Patriot Gathering.” Why were they mentioned in the article? When any group gets enough signatures to put initiatives on the ballot for voter approval, I do not think they are “on the fringe.” Carol J. Taylor Coos Bay
Neighborhood was ignored Our North Bend Simpson Heights neighbors continue to express concern about the Jordan Cove Energy “2,100 construction workers (at peak)” temporary, sea level, flood and tsunami zone, camp that is planned to be near their homes. On July 12, The World reported that locals’ concerns should be alleviated by knowing that ALL 2,100 workers (who have not yet been identified or hired, and who will be coming from places worldwide) will be people “making around $100,000 a year who live in nice homes, in nice communities.” Further, all workers are subjected to “drug tests and background checks” and all are “upstanding men and women.” Jordan Cove Energy would have us believe that at the end of the long day, the workers will be sitting around a campfire doing needlepoint, managing investments, reading Shakespeare and listening to Vivaldi. Poppycock! Seems like every day The World publishes a letter from a concerned citizen (yahoos, naysayers, ain’ts, newcomers and fringe — what the chosen few of our community have labeled our neighbors who oppose LNG). Simpson Heights residents have never assembled to protest the planned nearby LNG factory. If construction commences, local bars and restaurants (and probably jails) may be busy for a few years. Ever been near a major construction site with thousands of workers with nothing to do at night except party? I have. I partied with them. The local police/paramedics will be overwhelmed. Are we prepared? Is
there sufficient resources and budget — and not just in North Bend? And, those tourist dollars that now feed the restaurants may evaporate and never return. Why do the local chosen few who have married us to LNG, to the SCCF, to the CEP, refuse to get any of the LNG developers promises in writing? How stupid does the LNG man believe that locals are? Where is the written enforceable agreement that makes the LNG developer responsible for all costs of public safety expenses incurred to safeguard their product and to safeguard the people from temporary workers in a work camp at the end of the work day? Will the “fenced in” clone of Stalag 17 burden other local infrastructure — electricity, water, sewer, etc.? Is the garbage riding the northwest winds coming to your neighborhood? At a minimum, our Simpson Heights neighbors deserve to be heard — on the record. We would want no less for ourselves. Fred Kirby Coos Bay
EQ editorials missed the mark I am writing about your two editorials regarding the impending earthquake and tsunami. I don’t know how long you have lived in our area,but for more than a decade we have been told to prepare for a disaster. Many citizens of this county have been CERT trained. In our neighborhood, the CERT trained folks held a meeting to inform the rest of us about planning and what we needed to have on hand to survive for weeks or longer after the event and how we can work together to make this easier on all of us. We know that we live in an area that will, not may, have a catastrophic event. I was raised in the San Francisco bay area, and I am fully aware of what it is like to experience an earthquake. The ones I experienced were, of course, not 9.0 on the Richter scale, but, nevertheless, I know the damage a small one can do. I find it interesting that you are shaking your finger at those of us who oppose the LNG plant and our concerns about what happens at the plant when this event happens. It seems like you think we are just not informed and that we should be more concerned about the event than the plant. I believe we are fully informed and as prepared as we can be and just want to have the scientific facts about the inevitable if this plant is built. It seems like you are the ones who need a reality check. Please read LNG-in-tsunamizone_all.pdf on the 350corvallis.org’s website under “resources.” This document is written by oceanographer Charles Miller. Judy Moody Coos Bay
Write to us The World welcomes your letter. Write to letters@theworldlink.com, or P.O. Box 1840, Coos Bay, 97420. ■ Please use your real name. ■ 400 words maximum. ■ No defamation, vulgarity, business complaints, poetry or religious testimony. ■ Please list your address and daytime phone for verification.