Letters policy
We welcome letters, but please include your full name, address and a daytime telephone number. We edit all letters for libel, length and clarity.
Send letters to: Letters, Illinois Times. P.O. Box 5256. Springfield, Illinois 62705. Fax: (217) 753-3958. E-mail: editor@illinoistimes.com
HERE’S HOW TO BUILD A MAJORITY
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin is the designated
“Bush fighter”? Hmm, all this time I thought he was the
Illinois senator. The oath of office has clauses including being
the designated “Bush fighter”? Interesting — I
thought being elected a U.S. senator from Illinois meant
representing Illinois citizens. What a concept — an elected
official actually voting on the merit of proposed legislation,
regardless who submitted it.
According to the Illinois Times “Bush
fighter” article [John Nichols, Feb 3], our senator is
focused on defeating everything and anything that isn’t a
Democrat-sponsored bill or receives a blessing from the Democratic
Party.
In the article Durbin is quoted as saying,
“We have to stand up, look at our own agenda, our own
language and figure out how we build this back into a majority
party.” It’s not that hard to do, Senator.
For example, Social Security is the hot
topic. Why would a party not try to make Social Security better?
Why keep a Social Security [program] that pays a meager monthly
amount for a meager existence? Why can’t the average Jacks
and Jills have a retirement plan like the ones our elected
officials have? Elected officials are retiring with lots of money
— millions in some cases — as benefits. Pass
legislation that transforms Social Security into something that
retirees can live comfortably on for years. The party that made
that happen would be the majority party for years to come.
Oh, by the way, I’m not holding my
breath! Apparently it’s must be more important to be in
opposition than actually passing legislation for the common good!
Jeff Davis
Dawson
FAR LESS THAN ENTHUSIASTIC
I was dismayed to see that your review of
C.A. Tripp’s The Intimate World
of Abraham Lincoln states that
the book contains “an astonishing introduction by Jean Baker
and mostly praiseworthy afterthoughts by Michael Burlingame and
Michael B. Chesson, not to mention fawning blurbs from Gore Vidal
and Thomas Schwartz, among others” [Charles B. Strozier,
“Gay Abe?” Feb. 10].
My afterword is very different from that by
Prof. Chesson, who provided “an enthusiastic
endorsement” of Dr. Tripp’s thesis that Lincoln was
“predominantly homosexual.” I, on the other hand, say
(p. 238): “Since it is virtually impossible to prove a
negative, Dr. Tripp’s thesis cannot be rejected outright. But
given the paucity of hard evidence adduced by him, and given the
abundance of contrary evidence indicating that Lincoln was
romantically and sexually drawn to some women, a reasonable
conclusion, it seems to me, would be that it is possible but highly
unlikely that Lincoln was ‘predominantly homosexual.’
”
Earlier in my afterword, I discuss
Lincoln’s relations with Ann Rutledge, Mary Owens, Sarah
Rickard, Matilda Edwards, and Mary Todd.
Michael Burlingame
Sadowski Professor of History Emeritus
Connecticut College
New London, Conn.
IT’S HIGH TIME FOR LEGAL POT
Richard J. Rawlings was right on point in his
provocative examples of how marijuana-prohibition laws are not only
irrational, but they also impede police from work that would far
better serve the public interest in health and safety for all
[“Letters,” Jan. 6].
The good news is that a growing number of
police, judges, and others formerly involved in prosecuting the
so-called war on drugs are now calling for an end to criminal
prohibitions against marijuana use and distribution. They have
organized as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
LEAP believes that in-demand drugs, most
notably marijuana, are best distributed in a legal, regulated
market. LEAP knows that illegal dealers are the ones who actively
market pot and other drugs to minors. Illegal dealers conduct
violence in our neighborhoods. Most important criminal dealers
require millions of valuable police man-hours be wasted in a futile
attempt to control illegal-marijuana flow.
Legalizing marijuana will not solve all the
problems related to its use, but we did not end alcohol prohibition
in 1933 because alcohol use was without risk. We did it because of
the urgent need to put Al Capone and other criminal dealers out of
business and move the product into a market that could be easily
monitored by authorities. We were then more able to help those who
have problems with alcohol while respecting the privacy of those
who use the drug responsibly.
It’s time for an equally sensible
change in policy for the 21st century. It’s time to legalize
marijuana for responsible adult use.
Stephen Heath
Clearwater, Fla.
MARRIAGE UNDER ATTACK — BY STRAIGHTS
Reading Dianne Gustafson’s letter to
the editor [Feb. 3] caused my eyes to bulge and my fists to clench.
I am rather confused by the fact that Mrs. Gustafson finds laws
that prevent discrimination not as something to strive for but as
something to fight against. She claims that “protecting
homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender confusion is an invitation
to folly!” Her rationale: If gays get equal rights
they’ll be allowed to get married. I doubt that Mrs.
Gustafson would be arguing against equal rights if the topic
wasn’t about homosexuality.
When people start talking about
“protecting marriage” from homosexuality, I always
wonder how they think gays are going to damage marriage in any ways
that the rest of us haven’t already. Nobody needs a reminder
of how high divorce rates are among the “correctly
oriented” members of society. Heck, marriage is hardly sacred
among the heterosexuals — if it were “sacred,”
there wouldn’t be divorces!
Is Mrs. Gustafson afraid that if gays are
given equal rights she will suddenly change her sexual orientation
and become a sinner? If I may ask a question of those who oppose
gay marriage, why on earth do you care what a couple of people do
in their private lives?
Bryan McConnell
Springfield
IT’S RIGHT THERE, IN BLACK AND WHITE
I have followed the public discourse since
Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed legislation adding sexual orientation
to the Illinois Human Rights Act with a mixture of anger, bemusement, and sorrow at the appalling legal
ignorance of the opponents. The Act’s exemptions include “.
. . (2) ‘Employer’ does not include any religious
corporation, association, educational institution, society, or
nonprofit nursing institution conducted by and for those who rely upon
treatment by prayer through spiritual means in accordance with the
tenets of a recognized church or religious denomination with respect to
the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work
connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association,
educational institution, society or nonprofit nursing institution of
its activities” (775 Illinois
Compiled Statutes 5/2-101).
Therefore, positions related to
“preaching” are exempt from the Illinois Human Rights
Act. Let’s think about this logically (as opposed to reacting
emotionally): If religious institutions were not exempt, would
there not have been a lawsuit against the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints? Before 1978, males of African ancestry were
barred from the Mormon priesthood — were there any successful
lawsuits anywhere over this racially exclusionary policy that
resulted in the admittance into the priesthood of males of African
ancestry? Didn’t think so.
John Krein
Springfield
WHO IS DRIVING U.S. POLICY?
The 9/11 Commission report has confirmed that
the reason for the attack on the World Trade Center was the
“violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring
Israel.” In the same vein, Richard Clarke has stated in his
book that one of the reasons for the Iraq invasion was to protect
Israel.
Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, an
acolyte of Ariel Sharon, started planning for the Iraq invasion
long before 9/11. [Editor’s note: Feith submitted his
resignation last month.] Feith and Sharon, not the CIA, are
believed to be the source of much of the false intelligence about
Iraq. The United States, for the first time, has become involved in
Israel’s endless fundamentalist religious war with the
Muslims.
The European Union, on the other hand, has
gone on record supporting the United Nations resolution, which
passed 150-3, condemning the illegal land grab [facilitated] by
Sharon’s “apartheid” wall. The Europeans are
within range of Israeli submarine-based nuclear missiles, as is
their oil supply in the Persian Gulf. They view the militaristic
regime in Israel as extremist and their No. 1 threat.
Osama bin Laden, with the unwitting aid of
the neoconservatives, has finessed the United States into a costly
crusade on the side of the Sharon government that has awakened a
complacent Muslim world’s animus against the United States.
Kenneth E. Baughman
Monticello
This article appears in Feb 17-23, 2005.
