Untitled Document
We welcome letters. Please include your full name,
address, and telephone number. We edit all letters. Send them to Letters, Illinois Times, P.O. Box 5256,
Springfield, IL 62705; fax 217-753-3958; e-mail editor@illinoistimes.com.
WHAT’STHEIRTRUEAGENDA? In my youth, I would have responded to each and every one of the people or groups mentioned in Jeannette Cooperman’s article, “Demonizing Obama” [published April 3]. Life has taught me not to entertain ignorance, but that does not mean I would not address it. As a Christian, I learned the true meaning of love when I stopped reading the Bible and started studying it. What was displayed in this article does not even come close to that — and I guess that was the intent. There are good Americans, of all races and gender, losing their jobs, homes, savings, and self-respect because of the current administration’s policies or lack thereof. Yet the most important thing to those quoted in this article seems to be spreading fear. As Christians, the only fear they should have is that of God Almighty. They cannot justify voting for Barack Obama because of his pigmentation, so they have to find some other excuse to make it appear this is not their true agenda. Be honest with yourselves: Your goal is to have a candidate who has much more baggage than your candidate. What I see here is the classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. This current administration has been so belligerent and arrogant, and yet those cited in your article still want the same thing for the next four to eight, possibly 12, years. I am reminded of a story, and I will be brief, about a man in a rowboat in a storm at sea. He prayed to God for him to come down and rescue him. So someone passed by and asked if they could help. He said, “No, I am waiting on God.” This happened a couple more times until he was finally swallowed up by the sea. When he got to heaven he asked God, “Why didn’t you rescue me?” God said, “I sent two ships and you refused them.”
Here comes Barack Obama, a different kind of political adversary — what the right wing has been asking for — and yet he is demonized by them. Just for the record, there is a difference between believing in the right to choose and advocating abortion. I say to them, he is not perfect; none of us are. Nor have I heard him claim to be. Do they really think that his being elected president would really be an abomination to America — especially with all the new watchdog groups that will spring up, finally doing what they should have being doing for the past 50 years, keeping an eye on Washington, D.C.? C’mon, what’s your real fear? Be like Daniel, a righteous Christian: Lay it out on the table. Do righteous Christians run around telling their children that anyone can be president of the United States of America except those who do not have their physical characteristics? Christians surely must know that God’s judgment will be the only judgment that counts. Remember, he will be judging you also, and I do not believe you can put those fears in God. Ronnie Booth Springfield GOTILK? While Jeannette Cooperman is right about how many evangelical Christians aren’t too hot on Obama, I was disappointed that she would use a phrase like “Eaton’s ilk” to slam Fran Eaton and others who hold similar views. Fran Eaton and I disagree about many things including Obama, but “ilk” is a word with all sorts of negative and nasty connotations. It’s ironic that Cooperman’s own words demonstrate how easy it is to demonize those who disagree with us. David P. Graf Chatham
AFOOLFORNUCLEAR It’s fitting that state Rep. JoAnn Osmond, R-Antioch, picked April 1 to introduce an amendment to the Public Utilities Act repealing the moratorium on new nuclear-reactor construction in Illinois until a permanent disposal solution is first implemented for the dangerous, long-lived high-level radioactive wastes they generate. Perhaps attempting to demonstrate just how severely scientifically challenged the Legislature is, only a fool would advocate opening the floodgates to generate even more of some of the most hazardous substances humanity has ever created before implementing an environmentally responsible permanent disposal solution. As an encore, maybe another legislator will promote state building codes that don’t require bathrooms in new buildings — you know, to ease the regulatory burden on poor cash-strapped developers.
No great urgency for new reactors — or even large power plants — currently exists in Illinois to justify such a boneheaded move. The urgency that does exist is to rapidly increase market share for truly sustainable renewable-energy resources, like wind and solar, as is mandated in the recently passed Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards legislation. Repealing the nuclear moratorium deliberately undercuts the implementation of renewable energy sources in Illinois. Supporters of this nonsense are simply shilling for Big Energy. Repealing the nuclear moratorium is incompatible with the sustainable energy future of Illinois. It should be defeated. David A. Kraft, Director Nuclear Energy Information Service Chicago
BECAREFULWHATYOUWISHFOR Speaking on March 18 to the Council on Foreign Relations, President George W. Bush began by musing: “Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it.” In his conclusion he stated, “The battle in Iraq will end in victory.”
To determine “whether it was worth fighting,” consider if the U.S. and the world are “safer” from the threats of war, terrorism, disease, hunger, loss of human rights, and recession; the human cost in U.S. and Iraqi lives and permanent injuries; our long-term financial burden and subsequently unmet domestic needs; and the effect on U.S. honor and prominence in the world, and trust in our own government. To answer these, you must consider many perspectives and evidence with an open mind rather than just those supporting your preference. However, the expected results of “victory” are seldom discussed. “We want the Iraqi government to be elected by the Iraqi people; that’s what we want. We have faith in the choice of the Iraqi people, as well as the choice of people throughout the world.” These are the words of Mohammed Jafari, deputy head of Iran’s National Security Council, during an Aug. 2, 2007, interview. Other Jafari remarks: “Iran shares its longest border with Iraq. Second, the majority of Iraqis are Shi’ite; we have the same religion. Third, the second-largest ethnic group after Arabs are the Kurds, who are of Iranian descent. Fourth, as I mentioned in the beginning, the former Iraqi government was the single greatest source of regional problems for the Islamic Republic.”
Iran seems pleased with the prospect of our “victory.” And lest you think his fourth item exaggerates, note that the Iraqi Constitution states: “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.”
Looks like we removed the thorn in Iran’s side and will multiply its influence. Perhaps they’ll thank us. Jon Edwards Springfield
ITREADERS: BETTERTHANGOOGLE In the April 3 issue, letter writer Patrick Johnopolos asked about “a small low-carbon-footprint portable computer. If you buy one, the group (I can’t remember which) gives one just like it to a person in the Third World.” He can check en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Machine for more on the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project. The buy one/give one promotion ended Dec. 31, 2007, but www.laptopgiving.org is still accepting donations. If he’s interested in a subcompact computer for himself, the Eee PC is very similar and has a more grown-up look. At $400 retail, it’s four times as much as that $100 price for the Third World project, but it’s still an affordable way to carry a lightweight computer along — far less than $2,000 for a MacBook Air! Lola L. Lucas Springfield
WHAT’STHEIRTRUEAGENDA? In my youth, I would have responded to each and every one of the people or groups mentioned in Jeannette Cooperman’s article, “Demonizing Obama” [published April 3]. Life has taught me not to entertain ignorance, but that does not mean I would not address it. As a Christian, I learned the true meaning of love when I stopped reading the Bible and started studying it. What was displayed in this article does not even come close to that — and I guess that was the intent. There are good Americans, of all races and gender, losing their jobs, homes, savings, and self-respect because of the current administration’s policies or lack thereof. Yet the most important thing to those quoted in this article seems to be spreading fear. As Christians, the only fear they should have is that of God Almighty. They cannot justify voting for Barack Obama because of his pigmentation, so they have to find some other excuse to make it appear this is not their true agenda. Be honest with yourselves: Your goal is to have a candidate who has much more baggage than your candidate. What I see here is the classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. This current administration has been so belligerent and arrogant, and yet those cited in your article still want the same thing for the next four to eight, possibly 12, years. I am reminded of a story, and I will be brief, about a man in a rowboat in a storm at sea. He prayed to God for him to come down and rescue him. So someone passed by and asked if they could help. He said, “No, I am waiting on God.” This happened a couple more times until he was finally swallowed up by the sea. When he got to heaven he asked God, “Why didn’t you rescue me?” God said, “I sent two ships and you refused them.”
Here comes Barack Obama, a different kind of political adversary — what the right wing has been asking for — and yet he is demonized by them. Just for the record, there is a difference between believing in the right to choose and advocating abortion. I say to them, he is not perfect; none of us are. Nor have I heard him claim to be. Do they really think that his being elected president would really be an abomination to America — especially with all the new watchdog groups that will spring up, finally doing what they should have being doing for the past 50 years, keeping an eye on Washington, D.C.? C’mon, what’s your real fear? Be like Daniel, a righteous Christian: Lay it out on the table. Do righteous Christians run around telling their children that anyone can be president of the United States of America except those who do not have their physical characteristics? Christians surely must know that God’s judgment will be the only judgment that counts. Remember, he will be judging you also, and I do not believe you can put those fears in God. Ronnie Booth Springfield GOTILK? While Jeannette Cooperman is right about how many evangelical Christians aren’t too hot on Obama, I was disappointed that she would use a phrase like “Eaton’s ilk” to slam Fran Eaton and others who hold similar views. Fran Eaton and I disagree about many things including Obama, but “ilk” is a word with all sorts of negative and nasty connotations. It’s ironic that Cooperman’s own words demonstrate how easy it is to demonize those who disagree with us. David P. Graf Chatham
AFOOLFORNUCLEAR It’s fitting that state Rep. JoAnn Osmond, R-Antioch, picked April 1 to introduce an amendment to the Public Utilities Act repealing the moratorium on new nuclear-reactor construction in Illinois until a permanent disposal solution is first implemented for the dangerous, long-lived high-level radioactive wastes they generate. Perhaps attempting to demonstrate just how severely scientifically challenged the Legislature is, only a fool would advocate opening the floodgates to generate even more of some of the most hazardous substances humanity has ever created before implementing an environmentally responsible permanent disposal solution. As an encore, maybe another legislator will promote state building codes that don’t require bathrooms in new buildings — you know, to ease the regulatory burden on poor cash-strapped developers.
No great urgency for new reactors — or even large power plants — currently exists in Illinois to justify such a boneheaded move. The urgency that does exist is to rapidly increase market share for truly sustainable renewable-energy resources, like wind and solar, as is mandated in the recently passed Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards legislation. Repealing the nuclear moratorium deliberately undercuts the implementation of renewable energy sources in Illinois. Supporters of this nonsense are simply shilling for Big Energy. Repealing the nuclear moratorium is incompatible with the sustainable energy future of Illinois. It should be defeated. David A. Kraft, Director Nuclear Energy Information Service Chicago
BECAREFULWHATYOUWISHFOR Speaking on March 18 to the Council on Foreign Relations, President George W. Bush began by musing: “Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it.” In his conclusion he stated, “The battle in Iraq will end in victory.”
To determine “whether it was worth fighting,” consider if the U.S. and the world are “safer” from the threats of war, terrorism, disease, hunger, loss of human rights, and recession; the human cost in U.S. and Iraqi lives and permanent injuries; our long-term financial burden and subsequently unmet domestic needs; and the effect on U.S. honor and prominence in the world, and trust in our own government. To answer these, you must consider many perspectives and evidence with an open mind rather than just those supporting your preference. However, the expected results of “victory” are seldom discussed. “We want the Iraqi government to be elected by the Iraqi people; that’s what we want. We have faith in the choice of the Iraqi people, as well as the choice of people throughout the world.” These are the words of Mohammed Jafari, deputy head of Iran’s National Security Council, during an Aug. 2, 2007, interview. Other Jafari remarks: “Iran shares its longest border with Iraq. Second, the majority of Iraqis are Shi’ite; we have the same religion. Third, the second-largest ethnic group after Arabs are the Kurds, who are of Iranian descent. Fourth, as I mentioned in the beginning, the former Iraqi government was the single greatest source of regional problems for the Islamic Republic.”
Iran seems pleased with the prospect of our “victory.” And lest you think his fourth item exaggerates, note that the Iraqi Constitution states: “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.”
Looks like we removed the thorn in Iran’s side and will multiply its influence. Perhaps they’ll thank us. Jon Edwards Springfield
ITREADERS: BETTERTHANGOOGLE In the April 3 issue, letter writer Patrick Johnopolos asked about “a small low-carbon-footprint portable computer. If you buy one, the group (I can’t remember which) gives one just like it to a person in the Third World.” He can check en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Machine for more on the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project. The buy one/give one promotion ended Dec. 31, 2007, but www.laptopgiving.org is still accepting donations. If he’s interested in a subcompact computer for himself, the Eee PC is very similar and has a more grown-up look. At $400 retail, it’s four times as much as that $100 price for the Third World project, but it’s still an affordable way to carry a lightweight computer along — far less than $2,000 for a MacBook Air! Lola L. Lucas Springfield
