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
NUCLEAR: THE “RATIONAL”
ALTERNATIVE
Rather than adopt the narrow view of our
state and nation’s energy future espoused by Fletcher Farrar
[“You can’t ‘nuke’ global warming,’
July 14], I would urge that your readers recognize the need for a
forward-looking, balanced approach to meeting our growing electric
power needs. We will need large amounts of new baseload electric
generation in the years to come in order to continue to grow the
economy and maintain lifestyles ever-more dependent on electricity.
We will also need new baseload electric generation to replace older
coal-fired power plants that will be retired. In an industry as
capital-intensive as the electric power industry, investments
leading to construction and operation of these new units must be
made in a rational and reasonable economic and political
environment.
We will need more wind and solar power in the
years to come. However, neither wind nor solar generation will ever
be viewed as baseload generation because it is not reliably
dispatchable on to the electric grid. The volatility of natural gas
prices will limit the amount of new baseload electricity generation
from gas-fired power plants. While plentiful, coal can only be used
to fuel electric generators in the future if it meets continually
more stringent air quality standards. Whether the clean coal
technology used is traditional scrubbers or the developing coal
gasification methodology, using coal to produce electricity will be
increasingly more expensive in the years to come.
That leaves us no reasonable and rational alternative but to consider building the
next generation of nuclear power plants in this country. (I say
“this country” because European nations have been building
these next generation plants for many years.) If our nation’s
public policymakers can find the resolve to follow through on plans for
dealing with spent nuclear fuel, nuclear power will be a safe and
cost-effective part of our energy portfolio mix far into the future.
I should also add for clarification that
while Illinois coal-fired and nuclear power plants do
“use” large amounts of water, they
“consume” very small amounts. Water used in the power
generation process is recycled back into our lakes and streams. The
net effect of this recycling is very little of our water actually
being removed from the environment.
Jim Monk
President, Illinois Energy Association
Springfield
DURBIN’S ONLY MISTAKE
In response to the letter to the editor from Clint W. Sabin [see
the letter “Another apology in order,” July 7]: Mr. Sabin, I have to
disagree with your opinions. None of the inmates at
Guantánamo Bay has been accused of terrorism. In fact, they
are held without being charged. Some of the detainees are American
citizens. It has been three-and-a-half years for some of the
detainees — and more than 100 detainees have died in
Guantánamo Bay as part of the “roundups” since
9/11. The abuses at the hands of Americans must end. It is our
responsibility to question those in authority. Americans are
allowing their integrity to be compromised by the Patriot Act and
those who would abuse their position of power under the auspices of
said act.
And what about innocent people detained
worldwide by the U.S. government? We indict others for having
violated human rights, yet American soldiers are violating human
rights every day in Guantánamo Bay. The actions of the U.S.
military should never be allowed to violate the Geneva Conventions, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the U.S. Constitution. From
all published accounts this is what is occurring at Guantánamo
Bay and in Abu Ghraib.
The only thing Dick Durbin did wrong was
expect the media to allow the truth to emerge.
Rajean Gallagher
Oak Lawn
HEY, GOVERNOR: READ THIS
I live in the small southern-Illinois
community of Bluford. A few years ago, our small school built an
addition. It, of course, needed the state-required sprinkler system
installed. Our village did a study and found that it couldn’t
handle the water capacity needed if the sprinklers would need to be
used. Our system needed upgrading. At the time, the village was
under an extreme financial burden for a sewer system, so it applied
for a grant. We were awarded the grant, and construction began.
About half of the money was paid to contractors; then the governor
pulled the remainder of the grant.
The village of Bluford is hanging onto a
thread to try to avoid being taken to court over this matter. They
scrape anything they can to pay these contractors for the work that
they have done. Our school’s sprinkler system is not in
operating order. If a fire breaks out in the Bluford grade school,
hundreds of children could die. The school is only able to keep
operating by applying for waivers from the superintendent of
schools.
All the while, we have to hear about the
amazing amounts of money the governor is putting into things like
trap shooting in Sparta and a Little League field in Marion. All
these things are good, but priorities are very out of order.
I’ve e-mailed the governor more than once about this matter
and have not received any type of response whatsoever. If anyone
has any ideas how I can get the governor’s attention about
this matter, please let me know.
I’m afraid to send my children to
school.
Jamie Myers
Bluford
WHY A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
The 1996 Illinois Defense of Marriage Act
defines marriage as between one man and one woman. That’s
good, but is it good enough? Massachusetts had a DOMA, but three
judges ruled it unconstitutional last year, forcing the people to
accommodate same-sex “marriages.” To justify their
action, these judges cited the Massachusetts public-accommodations
law, similar to the one that Illinois state representatives passed
this spring. The judges also cited the Massachusetts
nondiscrimination civil-rights statute regarding employment,
housing, credit, and services. Once again, similar to the one that
the Illinois Legislature passed into law in January,
the statute gives special rights to homosexuals, bisexuals, and the
gender-confused. Are you seeing a pattern?
It is obvious that a DOMA isn’t strong
enough to protect the original meaning of marriage in our great
state. Amending the Illinois state Constitution with a marriage
amendment will secure marriage for future generations.
Kathy Valente
Illinois State Director
Concerned Women for America
Lansing
THE RULES OF MEMBERSHIP
I have known Danny Faulkner since the
mid-’60s [see the letter “Catholics: Shape up or ship
out,” July 7]. I respect him as an honest, straightforward,
standup individual. However, there are times when he exhibits an
ostrich mentality; that is, his head [is] in the sand. I agree with
Danny that if you belong to a club, then you are expected to abide
by the rules. If you cannot, or will not, do this, then you need to
get out of the club.
I will not attempt to teach Danny his
religion; however, I am not sure if he is aware that Jesus was an
observant Jew until the day he died and was subject to the rules of
that organization.
Galyn L. Ruyle
Nilwood
TURNING SOCIAL SECURITY INTO WELFARE
Not content with destroying Social Security
as we know it through “privatization,” President George
W. Bush now has another idea: “progressive indexing,”
which might better be called “regressive indexing.”
Here’s how it works: Social Security benefit levels currently
are tied to wages. Bush’s proposal would link them instead to
prices, which rise more slowly than wages. This would apply only to
those who make $20,000 or more a year. In other words, the very
poor would not be affected. But these cuts would be devastating to
those in the middle classes, many of whom depend on Social Security
in their retirement years. And it would have very little effect on
the rich.
There are other, better ways to reform Social
Security. One is to raise the cap on taxable income from $90,000
to, say, $150,000. This would affect only about 6 percent of
taxpayers. Another way, suggested by the AARP, is to keep some of
the estate tax and earmark it for Social Security.
In effect, Bush is trying to turn Social
Security into a welfare program instead of a retirement program,
which it is now. If he succeeds in doing this, Americans will no
longer support it. As with “privatization,” the more
people learn about so-called progressive indexing, the less they
will want it.
Beni Kitching
Springfield
This article appears in Jul 21-27, 2005.
