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.
WHEN CIVIL RIGHTS TRUMP TREATMENT
Dr. Alex J. Spadoni hit the nail on the head in his
recent commentary on treatment for the mentally ill [“Letters,”
May 17], but he told only half of the story. Everything he said about
treatment (or lack thereof) for mentally ill adults applies in spades to
mentally ill children as well.
The same civil libertarians who hamstrung
mental-health professionals, all in the name of “privacy
rights,” did the same thing to parents of mentally ill children. In
other words, the law is based on the premise that a mentally ill
12-year-old is capable of making decisions in his own best interests and
his parents are not. Mentally ill children who are at least 12 years of
age can refuse treatment, can refuse medication no matter how severe their
illness, can refuse parental access to needed information, and can even
prevent the Department of Professional Regulation from investigating
possible cases of malpractice. They can be committed only in extreme cases, and
usually the commitments last for a day or two or two weeks at the most.
Once they get out, the family is back to square one. It is a nightmare that
liberal civil libertarians have either ignored or downright encouraged. Why
do they do this? Are they so obsessed with privacy that they’ll
destroy children and families in order to protect it? I believe the answer
is even more sinister. Liberals and civil libertarians hate families, and
they especially hate responsible parents. By giving all the rights to
children and taking away legitimate parental rights, they further the cause
of undermining the family and the idea that parental rights outweigh the
rights of minors.
So the next time you liberal Illinois Times readers make out a
check to the ACLU, remember all of those parents out there who are trying
to get treatment for their mentally ill children. Then consider how you
would feel if your child had cancer and the ACLU said you could not get
your child hospitalized until the cancer was terminal. You’d be
justifiably outraged. Well, what the ACLU wouldn’t think of doing to
children with cancer, it was eager to do to children with mental illness.
Robert Huck
Springfield
HER LETTER WAS FOR THE BIRDS Jean Stable’s May 17 letter, titled “What
I learned from the birds,” was long and interesting. I’m sorry
that her experience with the birds did not work out. I know some people who
put out bird feeders, and they did not have the problems she described. I do take issue with Stable’s specious
generalizations regarding human nature and, in particular, her comments
about how people take advantage of government programs. This is argument by
analogy, not by facts. Stables writes, “This is a country that
punishes those who work, try to get an education, try to take care of
themselves.” If that were true, I’d be in bad shape right now.
We know that a high-school graduate earns more money than a high-school
dropout, and those who pursue post secondary education earn even more. That
doesn’t sound like punishment to me. There are people who abuse government social
programs, but that doesn’t mean we
should end those programs for everybody. When poor people receive aid, it
can create opportunities in their lives, which can enable them to attain
educational and career goals. Rent subsidies mean that someone has a place
to sleep and is therefore well rested to perform on the job. Food stamps
can sometimes make the difference between eating and not eating, and when
children suffer from malnutrition they are unable to perform in school. I
can go on and on with these examples.
Are birds really like us? People have the capacity to
set goals, plan ahead, and be ambitious. For all that I know, birds seem
only capable of thinking about their next meal, although perhaps someday
someone will prove me wrong. I guess what I really wanted to say is that
when you compare apples and oranges — or, in this case, certain bird
species with humans, you can get faulty results. Martin Celnick Springfield
GAMBLING ADDITION WILL SPREAD In spite of people’s cry for relief from
exorbitant gasoline prices and energy bills, legislators have found time to
vote on a gambling bill. House Bill 1124 will legalize video gambling in
bars. That may sound harmless to some, but it is not. Children have grown up playing video games. Adding
the element of cash and prizes will make the activity even more attractive
to young adults. Many will become addicted to gambling. HB 1124 legalizes gambling on video games
“simulating contests” in bars, restaurants, convenience stores,
bowling alleys, and truck stops. HB 1124 defines a bona fide contest as
being between two or more individuals. Hundreds of thousands of such
“contests” could be played each year in every community
statewide. While HB 1124 states that card games are not
included, this type of gambling will expand in increments. Gambling
interests will come back each year until video poker is legalized in every
community. HB 1124 will make it impossible to police these establishments
to determine if illegal gambling is going on. Gamblers will expect a
“payout” on all video machines in bars, convenience stores,
bowling alleys, restaurants, and truck stops. Video-machine gambling is
very addictive. Research has shown that gamblers take more risks and gamble
longer when they are drinking alcohol. Anita Bedell Executive director Illinois Church Action on Alcohol and Addiction
Problems Springfield
ARM THE POPULATION TO CUT CRIME The Illinois liberal-controlled government of
Democrats is at it again. Senate Bill 1007 is just another anti-gun-agenda
item to curtail gun ownership. The events in Virginia are sad, to say the
least; however, if Seung-Hui Cho only had 10-round clips, do you honestly
believe the outcome would have been any different? The event transpired
only because the system that you [the government] put in place failed. His
mental-health status was in question but not raised to a level of being in
the national database. This tragedy was fully preventable without any new
laws; simply enforce what you have. When will you learn, law-abiding gun owners do not
perform acts like this? More laws are only going to hamper law-abiding
citizens, not the criminals that will ignore your laws as they do now. With
Illinois and our neighbor to the north, Wisconsin, being the only two
states in the U.S. without concealed-carry weapon permits, how long do you
honestly believe it will be until our state become the crime capital of the
U.S.? Even the staunch liberals in Washington, D.C., have
finally come to their senses and begun going against the anti-gun movement.
Maybe the politicians were tired of being outgunned in their own homes by
criminals. There is only one real solution — Illinois with
a CCW-permit status equal to that of Florida or Texas. Only then will you
see a drop in crime. Bill Day Martinsville
SJ-R HAS BETRAYED
ITS LEGACY The ownership of the local State Journal-Register has
changed hands. But the familiar quotations that adorn the top of the
opinion page remain. One, on loyalty, is from Lincoln in 1864. The other,
on community service, is from the paper’s publisher in 1881. Those stated ideals of civic duty and trust have been
tarnished by the new management and the firing of nine SJ-R employees [R.L. Nave,
“Paper cuts,” May 17]. One in particular, Paul Povse, has been
well-known to SJ-R readers for decades. Beyond his professionalism and long
service to the paper, Paul Povse has been a goodwill ambassador for his
employer. His engaged involvement in this community, ever affable and
encouraging, has, in effect, enhanced the reputation of his newspaper for
37 years. When a distant management has so little regard for
its employees, how will it then regard our community? Jim Huston Springfield
CORRECTION A recent story [Dusty Rhodes, “Raising a
stink,” May 17] erroneously stated that Bob Young mentioned his plans
for a hog farm at a fire board meeting. Young himself was not at the
meeting; neighbors who oppose Young’s plan learned of it through another person present at the meeting.
This article appears in May 17-23, 2007.
