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.
HARDLY AN OUTSIDER TO ME I couldn’t help but be struck with the irony of
the observation that no matter how long you’re here you’ll
always just be passing through [Dusty Rhodes, “A Springfield
tutorial,” June 28]. I find that very ironic because Illinois Times is very
much a part of Springfield’s fabric. At least I think so. Rhodes’ “outsider” eyes have proven
to be very revealing. I don’t think of her as an outsider and I
really think she does your paper and journalism proud. I’m glad she
likes it here because I think she’s made Springfield a little better,
raised voices often unheard, and opened some minds. So if she’s just
“passing through” I thank her for taking the time to shine a
little light here.
Troy Gorda Springfield
RELIGIOUSLYENJOYINGBYBEE Years ago on a business trip from the Vatican, I
happened to find myself in Springfield. Looking for a cup of coffee early
in the morning, I ran across a paper box with free copies of Illinois Times. I immediately
became an avid reader. For years, I had one of the local priests send me a
copy. Once he retired and moved away, I was in a quandary. Luckily, the
paper became available on the Web, and I was able to continue to enjoy the
religious experience of reading Illinois Times. While I enjoy most of the
articles and authors, I have become particularly enamored with the writings
of Doug Bybee Sr. The depth of his insight is exceeded only by the breadth
of his experiences. As someone once said, “The truth lies
therein.”
In one of his recent articles, he
mentioned his advanced age and has, in others, hinted at his health
problems. Hopefully, these conditions will not hinder his ability or
willingness to continue to contribute his sage observations on life. Dr. Walter Johnson Thorntown, Ind.
A JOB WELL DONE I found the article “The shaft,” by C.D.
Stelzer [published June 28], to be extremely interesting and educational.
Part of the reason is because I have been a local union vice president for
the Progressive Mine Workers of America and avid fan of Mother Jones
(especially her words “Let us pray for the dead but fight like hell
for the living”). I also am a Taylorville resident and UMWA retiree
who is a former local union vice president for the United Mine Workers of
America organization. I thank you for a job well done.
Vic Roberts Taylorville
REAL GOAL IS MAKING MONEY Just picked up the issue with the Roundup Ready
alfalfa article today [Matt Jenkins, “Brave new hay,” June 28].
As the article explains, genetically altered crops have nothing to do with
the quality of the crop. The real goal is making money. The entire
agribusiness food industry does not have quality as its goal but rather
profit. The sad thing is, if you explained some of the issues to most
farmers they would side with Monsanto. They probably think they make more
money using all this stuff. And maybe they do, which brings us back to
“all about profit.” Farmers have just been a tool in the
corporations’ hands and have chosen to remain ignorant of the impact
of their actions on the environment, our food supply, and rural communities
while it has been corporations that have reaped the profits.
Mike Dappert
Winchester
HOW ABOUT ROUNDUP READY ANIMALS? Matt Jenkins provided your readers with an excellent
read about a very complex legal and agricultural matter [“Brave new
hay,” June 28]. Job well done. It’s difficult for most of us to
understand why some biotech alterations have been found acceptable (perhaps
to all but the European Union) while others have not. So now I’m
wondering how many domestic animals (dogs, cats, cows, and Tyson chickens)
have already consumed tons of Roundup Ready soybeans and still no
agriculture official has warned us about the mutant explosion.
Charles Conner Aberdeen, Miss.
SPD VIOLATED CHURCH SANCTUARY
There is a double standard here. When in domestic-violence cases
there is a belief that one party may have a weapon, police are trained to
set up a perimeter and send in hostage negotiators. We have seen this
method used in local newscasts. The predominantly black sanctuary Abundant
Faith [Christian Center] was violated by police who never believed for one
minute a weapon was involved, otherwise they would have entered not with
blazing stun guns but rather with blazing revolvers. This safe-haven
sanctuary was violated without a search warrant and not allowed the proper
respect for persons seeking refuge or political asylum such as what you
would find in U.S. consulates, embassies, and churches across America.
Actions by Springfield police equate to racist policy perpetrated by a
detached and arrogant leadership? I’m outraged that Gail Simpson is
the only alderman vocal enough to assert the rights of the few during this
unreasonable search and seizure. Springfield Police Department actions will
likely result in ammunition for pending racial lawsuits.
Tim L. Thornton
Springfield
SECURITY AT LIBRARIES ESSENTIAL In his recent missive to this publication, Darryl Fox
left the readers with the impression that he was acting as a people’s
advocate by pointing out an unnecessary and wasteful expenditure of their
hard-earned dollars, that being the employment of security officers at both
the public library and the presidential library [“Letters,”
June 28]. The “intrepid” librarians at these two
institutions, as Fox has labeled them, have many valid reasons for needing
an adequate level of security. These two facilities deal on a daily basis
with a large number of individuals, many of whom frequently exhibit erratic
and unpredictable behavior. I recently had the opportunity to discuss this
subject at some length with Fox in person, and although we did not arrive
at an eye-to-eye agreement I did feel, as the conclusion of our discussion,
that he saw some validity to my position. The fact is that these librarians
are virtually helpless against unexpectedly aggressive or even potentially
violent behavior by a troubled patron. The highly visible security acts as
a first-line deterrent to any type of unacceptable behavior and, if
necessary, as the response to preserve the safety of the library staff and
all of the other library patrons. I would leave it to the library-going public to
decide if this extremely small expense, as a portion of the operating
budget, can be considered a “patent waste of money.”
Mike Wallace Springfield
AWAITING THE TRUTH ON 9/11 I am astounded by the resignation of judges Robert
Jensen and Norman Solomon in protest of Project Censored’s inclusion
of the 9/11 research of Steven Jones on its “most censored
stories” list. I fail to understand how Jensen and Solomon could
admit that there are significant unanswered 9/11 questions while stridently
opposing research aimed at exploring those questions [C.D. Stelzer,
“Over the line,” June 28].
If there were even a 5 percent chance that the
official 9/11 story is untrue, the historic importance of that possibility
would dictate that any rational American devote all available time and
energy to resolving those doubts and encouraging any and all potentially
relevant research. In fact, the official story is demonstrably
untrue. The FBI has stated and reiterated that Osama bin Laden, wanted
for the African embassy bombings, is “not wanted for 9/11”
because there is “no hard evidence” connecting him to 9/11. The FBI’s position should not come as a
surprise. All four major pieces of evidence in support of the official
story have been shown by mainstream sources to have been fabricated. • Atta’s suitcase, containing the names of
the alleged 19 hijackers, along with a “will” that can easily
be proved to be a forgery, was admitted by a top U.S. intelligence official
to have been planted as fabricated evidence. In an interview with Seymour
Hersh, that official, speaking primarily of the suitcase and its flight
manual, said, “Whatever evidence was left was left deliberately for
the FBI to chase.” Note that this suitcase, conveniently discovered
on 9/11, was and remains the only source of the 19 names blamed for 9/11.
Apart from this suitcase, the FBI admits that it has found absolutely
nothing implicating any of the alleged hijackers — and that the
actual identities of the hypothetical hijackers remain in doubt. • The only important source on the alleged
hijackers’ activities in Germany is another “magic
suitcase” — this one delivered into the hands of the German
police by a self-proclaimed Good Samaritan burglar. According to Der Spiegel, which has
generally defended the official 9/11 story, the German police know that
this “burglar” was obviously an intelligence agent. • The so-called Osama bin Laden confession video
of December 2001, in which bin Laden seems to demonstrate foreknowledge and
approval of the 9/11 attacks, is “bogus,” according to leading
expert Bruce Lawrence, head of religious studies at Duke University.
Lawrence adds that all of his many contacts in the CIA’s Osama bin
Laden unit know that it is bogus. The “confession video”
contradicts numerous earlier authentic interviews in which bin Laden denied
any involvement in 9/11, deplored the attacks as un-Islamic, and blamed
American Zionists for them. Surely the U.S. media’s neglect of these
earlier interviews and its hyping of the bogus confession qualify as
censorship of an extreme kind!
• Aside from the three above items, the only
major support for the official story consists of alleged statements under
interrogation by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which are cited, without any
specificity of either content or context, as footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report. Yet
there is absolutely no verifiable record of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s
ever being arrested or interrogated. In fact, [Mohammed’s] alleged
arrest in Pakistan seems to have been a staged, fictitious event. When the
U.S.-Pakistani authorities showed what they claimed was actual video
footage of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s arrest to journalists, the
journalists derided it as an inept attempt to pass off an obviously staged,
fictitious event as an actual police raid and arrest. Since we now know that the official story rests on
these and other less significant pieces of fabricated evidence, planted by
intelligence agents to falsely implicate Osama bin Laden and 19 alleged
hijackers, the most reasonable hypothesis is that 9/11 was a psychological
operation designed to grease the skids for war in Afghanistan and the
Middle East. Research appearing to confirm this hypothesis, like that of
Steven Jones, should not be dismissed a priori, least of all by Project Censored. In fact, I suspect that when the dust has settled,
future historians will wonder why post-9/11 Project Censored has examined anything other
than 9/11 stories, compared to which almost all of its other censored
stories are trivial.
Kevin Barrett
Lone Rock, Wis.
TROUBLED BY CONDEMNATIONS I am a retired litigation attorney, initially
admitted to the bar in Springfield after graduating from the University of
Chicago Law School almost 50 years ago. After spending much time evaluating
evidence concerning destruction of three World Trade Center skyscrapers on
9/11, I have found the controlled-demolition hypothesis advanced by
Dr. Steven E. Jones to be extremely important and credible and worthy of
official investigation. So I am puzzled and troubled by apparent
condemnations of Dr. Jones’ work by distinguished progressive
journalists, such as Robert Jensen and Norman Solomon, who nonetheless
concede “that there are unanswered [9/11] questions” [C.D.
Stelzer, “Over the line,” June 28]. It is difficult for me
to believe that they have carefully evaluated the important evidence
supporting Dr. Jones and impeaching official explanations. And I hope that
they might reconsider their positions. Apart from your article, do you know of any further
explanations offered by Jensen or Solomon to justify their
denunciations of Jones and others seeking new official 9/11 investigations
of “unanswered questions” about possible use of pre-planted
explosives?
Ron
Rattner
San Francisco
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION NEEDED Good riddance [to Project Censored judges Robert
Jensen and Norman Solomon]. I worked on the pile [the remains of the World
Trade Center] as
a medical first responder, and it was clear to those of us who were there
that those building were brought down by detonations of explosives. I
don’t know what is going on with Solomon, because he is often the
first to condemn this government for its policies. We need an independent
investigation now. Robert Martin Albuquerque, N.M.
MARRIAGE IS A COMMON GOOD A new study released by the respected Pew Research
Center indicates that more Americans disagree with the policy idea of
allowing homosexuals to marry. The report states that a clear majority (57
percent) of the public opposes allowing gays and lesbians to marry, and
that more people oppose the idea of “civil unions” than support
it, by a 1 percent margin. Furthermore, the support for “civil
unions” seems to be waning in recent years. These results only underscore the fact that Americans
reject the idea of counterfeit marriage. In every state that has passed a
marriage amendment, the final vote has been 6 to 8 percent greater than the
polls. While this is not an Illinois-specific poll, it, along with the
polling-variance history from other states, demonstrates that the
legislative attempts to redefine marriage are contrary to the wishes of
voters. This Pew study reflects the continuing common sense of the American
people. Americans seem to understand that the debate over the
issue of marriage isn’t simply about marriage law but about
destructive public policy that will radically change our cultural
understanding of the family. Marriage isn’t simply for any set (or
group) of adults who want official government recognition or special perks
and privileges. Governments throughout history have recognized that
it is in society’s best interest to promote the institution of
marriage. Every society needs traditional marriage — as many men as
possible each finding a woman, caring for her, and committing himself
exclusively to her — working together to create and raise the next
generation. Marriage and family are the bedrock of healthy civilizations.
The bottom line: Marriage is a common good, not a
special interest.
David E.
Smith
Executive director
Illinois Family Institute
Glen Ellyn
This article appears in Jul 5-11, 2007.
