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.
IRV SMITH DIDN’T “RUIN” ANYBODY Bravo! I’m an avid Abe Lincoln fan and yearn
for the days of the eloquence of the written word, where opinions and ideas
can be fostered, developed, and presented, not “blown up” in an
instant by a sound bite. I’ve been following the story on Irv Smith,
whom I’ve never met [Dusty Rhodes, “Party animal,” April
19]. I’m a high-school friend of his daughter April. The story was
balanced, insightful, and indeed a “warts and all”
representation. I was very highly amused to see the proponents and
opponents alike lash the grammatical cannons to the foredecks and start
blasting away [“Letters,” April 26]. All three letters were
really well done, and the authors might want to seek employment with your
firm if their current jobs expire. Which brings me to the point of writing: jobs. The
only objectionable logical progression was the linkage between a patronage
system and “ruined lives,” ostensibly of those who did not get
the available position. Patronage is simply a means to the end, which, for
all practical intents and purposes, is virtually identical. One person gets
the job, leaving all other applicants to find other equally needy
employers. We watched that dynamic firsthand here in New York when Rudy
Giuliani took on the 900,000-strong civil service in the city. I’ll
never forget a segment on the radio show Meet
the Mayor when an aggrieved former employee
emotionally beseeched the mayor, “What am I going to do? What am I
going to do now?” To which the mayor calmly responded, “Sir,
you are going to use your resources, your experience, and your brains . . .
to find a job. It is not the responsibility of the city to provide
employment; it is the responsibility of the city to provide services to
those who live here.” It was beautiful. And with all due respect to
[letter-writer] R.M. Martin, the same applies here. Irv Smith simply used
the mechanism in place to find one person a job. All the other applicants
would then have to use their resources, experience, and brains . . . to
find a job! Who got it and who didn’t doesn’t change the end
result. If anyone then chose to sit idly around and let their lives be
ruined because they didn’t get that particular position, then shame
on them.
Doug Wilson Thornwood, N.Y.
THE BUZZ ABOUT CELLPHONES Thank you so much for your recent issue whose lead
story was on the disappearance of honeybees [C.D. Stelzer,
“BEEwitched, Bothered, and BEEwildered,” April 26]. The role
cellphones and cellphone towers [may play] was really ignored. Our bees
were buzzing around just fine this spring; then they went out and never
came back. We live within one mile of a cellphone tower, and it was about
the time of the freezing temperatures, I think they went out foraging and
lost their way. Then the hive inspector for Lincoln Land Beekeepers
reported that a beekeeper in Bloomington lost all his hives early this
spring and doesn’t understand why. I’m not a scientist, but no
one was spraying any chemicals at this point this early in the spring. I also wanted to point out, when the bees swarm
— for example, under the eaves of a home — homeowners call
[pest-control companies] and they eradicate 350,000 bees quickly. It seems
as if we need a piece of legislation that would force pest-control
companies to notify a local beekeeper to come and capture the hive.
Margaret Katholi Springfield
BLOW TO GO AND SAVE LIVES While as a practical matter Dusty Rhodes was right
when she wrote in her Fresh Ink column that only multiple-DUI offenders can
be required to install a breath alcohol ignition-interlock device (BAIID)
in their car, legally she is wrong [“Blow to go,” April 26]. At
my request in 1999, state Sen. John Cullerton introduced Senate Bill 1129,
which became law, giving judges the authority to impose installation of a
BAIID on first-time offenders as a condition of a judicial driving permit
or of court supervision. A BAIID is akin to a Breathalyzer in your car. You
blow into it, and if your blood-alcohol content is too high the car
won’t start. As it has turned out, though, the problem with the
first-offender BAIID law passed in 1999 is that judges almost never use it
and prosecutors rarely ask judges to impose it.
Studies show that 80 percent of persons whose
licenses are suspended or revoked continue to drive. The theory of the
BAIID is that if the DUI offenders are going to drive regardless of license
suspensions or revocations, why not let them drive legally — but only
when they’re sober. The BAIID — and the next generation of the
device, which will detect if you’re drunk through sensors in the
steering wheel — virtually guarantees that DUI offenders will only
drive when they’re sober.
Studies show that BAIIDs reduce the DUI-rearrest rate
for those who use them by 60 to 90 percent. A 2005 study showed that the
rearrest rate for first offenders in New Mexico without a BAIID was double
that of first offenders with one. New Mexico is the only state that now
requires BAIIDs for all first offenders. The problem Sen. Cullerton’s current bill, SB
300, is trying to address by requiring BAIIDs for all first-time
offenders is that, like anything else, BAIIDs won’t work if you
don’t use them. Even though BAIIDs have been around for a dozen
years, we have squandered their tremendous lifesaving potential by
requiring only a token use of them. There were more than 50,000 DUI
arrests in Illinois in 2004, but only about 3,000 BAIIDs are in use here,
putting Illinois in the bottom tier of states in BAIID usage. If Cullerton’s bill to require BAIIDs for all
first-time offenders can’t muster the votes to pass, then he ought to
amend it to the bill I proposed when I ran for state representative and
that Rep. Raymond Poe said he backed: Make installation of a BAIID a
condition of a judicial driving permit and of court supervision only for
the worst first-time DUI offenders, who blow 0.16 or higher (double the
legal limit of .08) or whose DUI involved an accident.
Sam Cahnman
Springfield
DISAGREES STRONGLY WITH GRT I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read Fletcher
Farrar’s column on the gross-receipts tax that Gov. Rod Blagojevich
is proposing [“Now is the time for a tax increase,” May 3]. First of all, I agree with Farrar on most issues; he
is levelheaded and speaks for the middle class and underprivileged in a way
that is consistent and sincere. However, I vehemently disagree with him on
the GRT in such a way that it is all I can talk about with my boss these
days. I have weighed in on Jim Leach’s conversations [on WMAY (970
AM)] regarding same and recently I wrote a letter to our governor —
not that I ever expect to get a personal response. Oftentimes the public is only given a small view of
the picture that politicians paint for their own self-preservation. Gov.
Jim Edgar got this state out of debt during his time in the Executive
Mansion and had money in the bank. Govs. George Ryan and Blagojevich have
spent that money and then some. Do we really think that this money is going to help
the underprivileged, or will it be another black hole where money is thrown
(such as the Illinois Lottery has been) for their own benefit? Before the Illinois politicians thrust a tax upon the
corporate world, they need to clean up the waste under their own noses.
Family members and friends are hired for super positions and are often
overpaid compared to what they would receive in private industry, there is
fraud in Medicare and public aid to citizens who are able to work and fend
for themselves, pork projects are handed out each and every year for
senseless projects, and the list goes on and on.
Julie L. Becker
Springfield
This article appears in May 3-9, 2007.
