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.
EMBRACE THE SMELL OF LIVE BACON
As a small child back in the ’70s, I spent many days in the
bar in Buckhart, back when kids could do those kind of things. My entire
family is from this area; my grandfather retired from the gravel pit in
Buckhart. We are what you definitely would call small-town folk. After
graduating high school, I left my small town to see the country and to
serve it but never forgetting where it is I was born and raised. When I
returned, in the mid-’90s, I was amazed to see the homes that were
built in the timbers of Buckhart by the city folk trying to escape the fast
life and get a bit of country life. And after reading your article on the pig farm the
Youngs will build, I am appalled and ashamed of the people trying to stop
the Youngs [Dusty Rhodes, “Raising a stink,” May 17]. How dare
they move to the country knowing exactly what is there. Hello, people
— the country contains farms and farm animals. The Youngs’
expansion will increase jobs for farm hands. It will increase construction
jobs. It will increase grain needs for the animals. Oh and by all means you
city slickers, please do not forget all about that precious bacon, sausage,
ribs, pork steaks, pork loins, and pork chops you so love to eat. Do not
turn your nose up at the smell. Embrace the smell, and smile. Think of it
as money and a great economic venture and congratulate the Youngs. Helen Seymour
Springfield TIMETO LOOK IN THE MIRROR I just read your article about the problems with a
proposed hog facility [Dusty Rhodes, “Raising a stink,” May
17]. First, I want to say that you did a good job of
presenting both sides of the issue. My problem is the fact that this is an
issue at all. People need to get their heads out of their rear ends and
shut up. Everyone who is against this building project lives in a
generation who has never known what it is to be hungry or want for much of
anything. They like to go to the store and buy fresh protein, such as pork
chops, for a small cost. They know it will always be available; they take
it for granted that it will always be cheap and plentiful. They probably
know that animals produce waste no matter where they are raised. They want
somebody to produce it somewhere — but not in their back yards. They
are selfish and spoiled and have forgotten how lucky they are to live where
they never have to worry about where or when their next meal will come
from. If people like this keep getting in the way, they may
some day find out what it is like to do without some of those things, or at
least pay very dearly for them when no one wants to be in agriculture
anymore. How about $8 per pound for imported pork raised in another part of
the world? I have no love for [companies like] Cargill. But the
individual farmer can no longer compete, and this is the method of
production that U.S. citizens have unwittingly supported because they
demand cheap and plentiful food. So the people who cry the loudest maybe
should look in the mirror. Mark Lounsberry Oakford
DON’T IGNORE THE BIG BIRDS I could not agree more with Jean Stables of Decatur
[“Letters,” May 17] when she says that the solution to unwanted
birds in the yard may simply have to be to take down the bird feeder. I
must admit, however, that I lost her when she began talking about our
social-welfare programs in the same light. To me, “taking down the
bird feeder” in the context of social programs would be to eliminate
the entire welfare infrastructure, which would be intolerable. Improvement
of our nation’s social-welfare apparatus requires fine-tuning around
the edges, not a wholesale scrapping of the system. If Stables wished to find a more appropriate current
political meaning for her bird-feeder analogy, I would suggest the
corporate welfare apparatus is alive and well in the United States. Despite
efforts to eliminate it, the Export-Import Bank continues to spend hundreds
of millions of taxpayer dollars promoting McDonald’s’,
Xerox’s, and Microsoft’s products overseas. Oil companies
continue to receive taxpayer subsidies for drilling new fields, even after
reporting some of the greatest quarterly profits on record. The Defense
Department continues to give no-bid contracts, using taxpayer funds, to
companies with special access to the administration. Stables is certainly correct about how our country
provides free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, and free
education; she is also correct that work, attempts to educate and take care
of oneself, and the traditional method of providing for one’s family
are punished by misguided legislation. However, the former attributes of
the nation are to be commended; the latter should be changed by fine-tuning
— for example, eliminating big tax breaks for capital gains, and
reducing the lower marginal tax rates for working Americans. I doubt doing
so will work for the bird feeder in Stables’ yard, but our nation
should certainly invest in a gatekeeper at the welfare bird feeder, to
ensure that those availing themselves of its benefits are truly those
needing the help.
Eric Fisher Springfield
STRAIGHT DOPE FROM THE POPE The Democratic Party should ask the pope to clarify
his church’s teachings on being a pro-choice candidate or on voting
for one. As it stands now, we have conservative clergy and the
huge Catholic television channel saying that being a pro-choice candidate
or voting for one is a sin that must be confessed — with remorse and
resolve to stop — and failure to do so would take away your salvation
if you died in that state. We also have Vatican officials saying that is
not what the church teaches. Needless to say, the conservative Catholic
clergy are working it so Catholics only hear their message. Clarification on this teaching is the last thing the
pope or local bishops want to provide, but the Democratic Party has to ask
for it. Otherwise, the conservative clergy can cherry-pick
church teachings and make the issue work against them. Tom Ferrari Tovey
IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE There have been a lot of bad feelings about how much
money has been spent on the space program. [But consider] the staggering
amount of stuff that has been developed for the program. Some examples are
the microwave, very effective insulation (think of those thin silver capes
runners get to warm up after the race), medical advances, and research to
develop lighter, stronger materials. Think of how much less energy it takes to microwave
lunch in 90 seconds over the old method in 15 minutes. The amount of energy
saved in a year over the whole nation and planet is huge. The materials
used in planes, trucks, and automobiles that make them lighter save fuel in
every trip. There are thousands of examples not listed here.
Patrick Johnopolos Springfield
TOO MANY IDIOTS WITH GUNS Bill Day asks us, “When will you learn,
law-abiding gun owners do not perform acts like this?”
[“Letters,” May 24]. I’m sorry, I did not realize that owning a gun made
you automatically “law-abiding” for life. Let’s say a law-abiding man is having an
argument with his wife and there is a gun in the house and he’s never
operated with a full deck anyway. He is drunk, despondent, unemployed, and
about to lose his wife and family. Sound familiar? What are the chances
that his wife and kids can live through the night if a gun isn’t in the house? Much
higher, I would say.
The right to bear arms was created when arming
one’s self was a means to protect property and rise up against
one’s country. Do you really see Americans rising up against
their government? They barely get to the polls to vote. And I think we
created an entire police force to protect us from crime. I really
don’t care if it takes two years to get a gun. The more restrictions,
the better.
Guns were created for one thing:
killing. The last time I checked, killing people isn’t a good
thing.
Anne Logue
Springfield
This article appears in May 24-30, 2007.
