BUY OR BORROW
Mr. Krohe speaks of ambience; I say status. Barnes & Noble offers its customers that almost subliminal feeling that they are buying a book at a place where many others cannot, that same feeling one gets paying $4.99 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
We need to keep in mind that B&N’s primary motive is profit. Those bemoaning the loss of B&N should consider the public library where you can check out books, audio tapes, DVDs, plus a vast array of other media for free. Plus you can reserve a book online and the library will inform you by e-mail when it’s ready. It even provides an online research librarian.
As an experiment I placed the library’s search engine side by side with the one from Amazon.com. I found that many of the titles I entered from the Books section of The New York Times were available at both sites.
The other day I passed the public library’s extension on West Washington. It sat forlornly, draped with snow, its windows boarded. I daresay that if many of B&N’s patrons had frequented this branch, it would still be open today
IN DEFENSE OF SPRINGFIELD
I was born and raised in the politics, educational system, and the multi-cultural neighborhoods of the great city of Chicago. Then I married a farm boy from Springfield, IL. We moved “down here” about 30 years ago and I quickly realized two things: People in Chicago know little or nothing of the lives of anyone who lives south of Joliet, and people of central and downstate Illinois are suspect of anything that comes out of Chicago. The good news is that things have changed around here in the last 25 years. More and more of my fellow Central Illinoisans have come to appreciate all that Chicago has to offer.
Unfortunately, when we read letters like the one Mr. Lambertson submitted (Willis Lambertson, Barrington, Jan. 27), it sets the process back significantly. Mr. Lambertson’s letter reflects an attitude of arrogance and ignorance that does nothing to move our state forward. Mr. Lambertson should not be taken as representative of Chicagoans (He doesn’t really even live in Chicago.), and we should invite him to visit our National Historic Site – Lincoln’s home.
LEAVE ATHLETICS ALONE
I could not agree more with the question of whether or not UIS was ready to make the move to Division II. It was a move that was wanted by the chancellor and head of athletics for their own personal desires, and no one else. UIS does not have the budget, nor the desire/means to produce the funds needed to support an athletic program at the Division II level.
I completely disagree with the academic department desires to have more of a say in what goes on in the athletic department. academics has its own purpose on campus, and should stay out of athletics.
As for the scholarship debate, it is not high school anymore. Not everyone is guaranteed to play. A new coach has no obligation to keep the promises of the old coach, whether it be playing time or scholarships. If an athlete performs and improves, more money can be given out the next year. But if an athlete does not improve and does not work hard, the money should still be given the same regardless? That’s a double standard.
Also, the claim that athletics should not be able to kick students off teams and revoke money based on athletic performance is ridiculous. Teachers claim they aren’t able to kick students out of class based on academic performance. That may be the case, but it is well-known that students who receive academic money must maintain a certain GPA, otherwise the scholarship will be taken away. Sounds like the exact same case to me.