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
TEAR IT DOWN, AND I WON’T RETURN
I have been following with great interest the
evolving story of the Margery Adams House and the sad news of the
Illinois Audubon Society’s plans to raze it. It has been
heartening to read the many stories and letters to the editor, most
of which express enthusiastic support for saving it.
I want to add my voice to this support and
suggest that the Audubon Society, to protect its own image and to
achieve its goal of being “near the seat of
government,” the state Capitol, find a site near the Capitol
for its new headquarters.
Razing, or even moving, the house would
destroy the integrity and intactness of the legacy Margery Adams
left. True, she did agree that the house could be razed if it
became a liability. But over the years many people have donated
thousands of hours of labor and materials to keep the house
“alive.” Its destruction would be a slap in the face to
those who labored on it and would forever dishonor Margery
Adams’ memory.
The Adams House has been an integral part of
the environmental and educational experience enjoyed by thousands
of children and adults. If the Society succeeds with its plan, they
will impoverish the forest, leaving it without the historic home of
its original guardian. If it is gone, I for one will not set foot
on the Adams Sanctuary again.
I urge the Society to look at the bigger
picture concerning preservation, history and good will. On July 1,
two days before I left Illinois, I did a quick watercolor sketch of the house as a memento, assuming I will
not see it again.
Robert Waldmire
Rochester
MEET ME AT THE BIKE SHOW
On the weekend of Sept. 9-10, like many
citizens of Springfield, I rode downtown to see and admire the
automobiles that had traveled here to participate in the Mid-West
Charity Cruise. There was a good turnout and it appears the event
was an overwhelming success.
I have recently gotten into the habit of
commuting almost exclusively by bicycle. I do this for three
reasons. I have found cycling to be a rewarding and enjoyable form
of exercise, preserving the health of my body, mind, and spirit. I
save a little money on gasoline. And, for a moment at least, I cut
back a little on my contribution to the steady destruction of our
environment.
This weekend in Springfield should have
filled me with pride in my hometown. But sadly this weekend I was
not proud, but even embarrassed, for my hometown. I was harassed by
charity-cruise participants. I was verbally assaulted even as I was
riding in my lowest gear, safely and slowly by. State Police
officers demanded that I walk my bike rather than ride, apparently
at the request of the participants. At the lowest point, one
gentleman, as I was being polite and introducing myself to him and
his family, swore at me and threatened physical attack. My bike was
parked and I was not even on it at the time.
I ride approximately 50 miles a week on my
bike. Aggressive drivers on the streets, who make the occasional
verbal jabs out of a car window, are generally par for the course
— ask any cyclist. But the abusive behavior I witnessed this
weekend had a rare potency.
I understand how hard you work on your automobiles. I also understand that it is
possible for a finely crafted automobile to be regarded as a work of
art. I saw many such works this weekend. I fail to understand, however,
what harm I could possibly do by riding a bicycle. At no point was it
ever explained to me. The police officers, who are just doing their job
by the way, didn’t have an explanation when I asked for one other
than “they requested it.” Still, even if there is a
reasonable explanation, am I that threatening as to be forcibly and
physically dispatched?
But there is a bright future ahead. When all
the gas runs out, we’ll all be having bike shows. All of you
are invited. Just leave your cars at home.
Joshua Hester
Springfield
PROSECUTE PRIEST, NOT ATTACKERS
Why waste two lives for a sex offender?
It’s an irony of our justice system where often the victims
are punished and offender or criminal is let go unpunished!
That is exactly what seems to have happened in case of two
teens beating up Eugene Costa after Costa allegedly tried to lure
them into sex acts.
The Springfield Catholic Diocese has said now
in a written statement — and the same was admitted when the
incident occurred — that Costa had a history of inappropriate
and risky behavior. Costa later resigned as chancellor of the
Springfield Catholic Diocese and pastor of two parishes. This
suggests that what teens said about Costa’s behavior with
them seems to be right and in that case why not punish Costa who
ignited the incident?
It is wrong to put these two teens in jail
for a stupid mistake of a so-called priest! Instead of prosecuting
them, the state should commend them for their bravery in giving an
alleged sex offender a lesson of his life! Please, let them
go free and prosecute the priest.
Harish G. Bhatt
Springfield
THE BUNGLER-IN-CHIEF
In 2001, FEMA ranked a major hurricane strike
on New Orleans as “among the three likeliest, most
catastrophic disasters facing this country,” directly behind
a terrorist strike on New York City.
So what was done after that assessment?
The Bush administration made drastic funding cuts in New
Orleans hurricane-protection projects to make room for tax cuts for
millionaires and the war in Iraq.
The same president who didn’t pay
attention to a 2001 report that said Osama bin Laden was determined
to strike inside the United States and the same incompetent
Washington gang that has badly bungled the war in Iraq have now
bungled hurricane recovery. What a surprise.
Former FEMA director Michael Brown had no
experience in disaster management — his previous job was
running horse shows. Smart move.
I know one of the fruits of political victory
is that you get to reward your cronies with well-paid, do-little
jobs, and that everyone does this. But you’re supposed to do
it with the ambassadorship to Luxembourg, not with running a
department of emergency preparedness. It’s especially
appalling that President Bush didn’t bring in someone with
expertise after 9/11 when everyone in America, as one, agreed we
needed to beef up that area.
Alan L. Light
Iowa City, Iowa
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SCIENCE. REALLY.
The controversy between proponents of
Intelligent Design and Darwinism continues unabated. Darwinists
maintain that Intelligent Design doesn’t belong in the
classroom. They claim Darwinian evolution is more scientific than
Intelligent Design.
But what is more scientific than to accept
that his awesome, complex universe was designed by someone? Even
the simplest life form is incredibly complex. Human beings, endowed
as they are with physical, mental and spiritual qualities, are most
complex. What is more scientific than believing all life and
especially mankind was designed by someone?
To believe the premises of Darwinian
evolution requires we accept something that has never been
observed. Our observations tell us life does not arise
spontaneously from nonliving matter. Evolution of one kind of plant
or animal into a more complex kind or evolution of man from a lower
primate has never been observed. On what basis can we classify
unobserved events as scientific?
Whether Illinois was once underwater is not
disputed. No one denies that mutations occur. Nor is this about the
age of the earth. The probability of life arising spontaneously
from nonliving matter is effectively zero, whether earth is 6,000
or 6 billion years old.
Intelligent Design proponents are not
attacking science or the scientific method. Nor are they making up
reality. Instead, they are promoting a plausible approach to
origins that finds increasing acceptance.
Darwinian evolution is far close to
pseudo-science than Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is truly
scientific because it is based on observation. The concepts of
Intelligent Design are more amendable to test. It takes incredible
faith to believe the dogma of Darwinian evolution. Much less faith
is needed to believe an intelligent being designed the complexity
we observe.
Jerry Collins
Quincy
This article appears in Sep 15-21, 2005.
