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
MINER’S POINT
Meg Miner’s letter to the Illinois Times was thorough and to
the point [“Time to take a stand,” Jan. 1]. I was sad to hear Massachusetts
undercut the progress in gay rights there. As long as the general public believes
that being gay is a “choice” and not something one is born with, gays will continue
to suffer discrimination in churches, the workplace and even in their own homes.
Anne E. Logue
Springfield
GOOD FOR A CHUCKLE
I found www.illinoistimes.com on the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies’
Web site [and] just read “Lip service” by Christopher Wills [Jan. 1]. I found
it hilarious!
Kathy McNicholas
Champaign
SEND THE RIGHT MESSAGE
In the Illinois Times article about my proposed County Whistleblower
law, County Board Chairman Andy Van Meter does not directly criticize this good
government proposal, but instead criticizes the way the legislation was proposed
[Pete Sherman, “Lead Balloon,” Jan. 1]. What he failed to say is that I followed
the board’s administrative rules that he signed into law on May 8, 2001, before
I was even elected to the board. Rule 2.04.280 mandates that “all resolutions
. . . be filed in writing with the County Clerk.” That is exactly what I did.
There is no rule that provides for introducing a resolution to a committee.
Likewise, the article states that other Republicans accused me of grandstanding.
It is a common tactic, if you have no arguments against a proposal, attack the
procedure used to make it or to simply make a personal attack against the person
who brought the proposal. What they aren’t doing is arguing against the merits
of the proposal.
When I ran for the County Board in 2002, one of the main issues I campaigned
on was enacting a County Whistleblower law. Then, after I was elected, I took
a survey of my new constituents, and 87 percent wanted this law. If representing
and carrying out my constituents’ wishes is grandstanding, then I plead guilty.
Chairman Van Meter says he doesn’t think we want everyone keeping a little
black book on fellow employees. I agree. But there is nothing wrong with a county
employee or anyone making a note when they observe a county employee or contractor
seeking reimbursement for goods or services not provided, fraudulently reducing
the amount someone owes the county, or otherwise fraudulently bilking the county
out of taxpayer money.
The proposed County Whistleblower ordinance first came before the county board
the same day Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed into law the new state ethics bill
that was enacted on the other side of town with strong bipartisan support. The
citizens of our county want and deserve the highest standard of ethics from
our county government and those with whom it does business. Any legislation
that encourages or enhances this, especially something as time-tested as the
Whistleblower law, should be enacted with strong bipartisan support.
Not to pass the County Whistleblower law now would send the message, loud
and clear, that if you know something about fraud or corruption in Sangamon
County government, if you’re a potential whistleblower, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!
Surely, this is not the message we want to send. As a county board, if we really
want to protect whistleblowers, let’s put partisanship aside, and pass this
ordinance.
Sam Cahnman
Springfield
TENNESSEAN VOLUNTEERS HIS THOUGHTS
Just a note to say how much I enjoyed your New Year’s issue. Dusty
Rhodes did a super job of putting in perfect perspective the highlights of the
year that was [“The year of living dangerously”]. What a great year for news,
or great news for a year, depending on how you want to look at it.
Kurt Erickson’s piece on the proposed police museum shows how government in
the public interest can be brought to screeching halt when some politician freezes
grant money [“Police stories”]. Just think of all the excitement from school
children that has been delayed because they won’t get to see the Texas Thunderbolt
this school year. (I must say, however, that I was quite taken aback by your
apparent desire for a museum with an electric chair in a state that freed all
the death row inmates!)
Finally, Norm Solomon captured what many of us had been thinking while watching
television news with a recap of “The P.U.-Litzer Prizes for 2003.” Electronic
media never had much depth, but this year’s awards represented a shallow cross
section of what TV entertainment is all about.
There’s much, much more, but my computer, like me, is short on memory. Keep
up the great coverage and I’ll keep “reading” IT, because “The More You
Watch, The Less You Know.”
Chuck Conner
Memphis
UNBUCKLE THIS LAW
Seat belt laws represent unabated tyranny on the march as each year
law enforcement is expanded. Such laws infringe on a person’s rights as guaranteed
in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and the Civil Rights section of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
Seat belt laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal
lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine
a person’s own safety and health care standards for his or her own body. Not
using a seat belt is a victimless, state-created crime that does not hurt or
threaten anyone.
While seat belt use might save some people, there is ample evidence that others
have been more seriously injured and even killed because of forced seat belt
use. This is confirmed in the hundreds of successful lawsuits against the auto
makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985, resulting in hundreds of
millions of dollars in settlements and punitive damage awards. Further, some
people have been saved because a seat belt was not used in an accident. In the
latter case, the insidious nature of seat belt laws mandates that the survivor
be liable to a fine and possible arrest and jail for not dying in the accident
using a so-called safety device chosen arbitrarily by politicians. The fact
is the government has no constitutional authority to knowingly maim and kill
some people just because the government hopes to save others merely by chance.
The fact is, the government has no right to take chances with a person’s body.
The millions of tax dollars spent annually in support of seat belt laws since
1985 has never prevented even one traffic accident. Further, studies have shown
that some people feel safer wearing a seat belt and tend to take more driving
risks. This is known as “risk compensation,” which is covered in more detail
in the 1995 book Risk by Dr. John Adams of the University College London,
England. There also are other professionals who have published in trade journals
well documented research which clearly discredits the so-called benefit of seat
belt laws, but the national news media refuses to inform the public of such
facts.
There certainly is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use, as it is with
all other personal safety and health care recommendations in life; however,
there is a great deal wrong with all seat belt laws.
William J. Holdorf
Chicago
AMPLIFICATION
Last week’s cover, “The year of living dangerously,” was illustrated by Kevin
Atterberry.
This article appears in Jan 8-14, 2004.
