Letters to the Editor
An interesting story, indeed, about the Old Lux [see “Realcuisine” by Julianne Glatz, IT, April 2]. It generally references the other east side restaurants, but you
missed one of those east side notables. That is the Parkview, on Clear Lake
across from Bergen Park golf course, run by Hank Shuey for many years in the ’60s, ’70s and into the ’80s or thereabouts.
His great specialties included French fried lobster tails and the biggest, truly huge baked potatoes with a unique cheese sauce, which brought many customers, such as my wife and I and friends and others, back for more for many years.
And, of course, the Black Angus, owned and operated by Gene Petrelli and Wally Poos on South Sixth Street (currently Gallagher’s), whose specialty included aged black Angus steaks, hand cut by Wally, and tasty, tasty eating.
James M. Henneberry
I am writing to commend Illinois Times for running Jim Hightower’s column, “Common Sense.” As George Orwell once wrote, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” I consider the inclusion of “Common Sense” in your newspaper, along with your other reporting, to be “a revolutionary act.”
For example, in his column, “Fighting back in America’s 30-year class war,” (3/19), Hightower points out that the proposal by the federal administration to
raise taxes on the top 5 percent of the population to fund various social and
infrastructure projects is but a reaction to 30 years of federal policies,
which favored that 5 percent and has resulted in them controlling 60 percent of
the nation’s wealth. The charges of “class warfare” and “socialism” that have been leveled at Obama are intended to politically position him to
favor “economic growth,” which primarily benefits the richest 1 percent of the population.
Obama’s economic team is comprised primarily of proponents of “growth” who advocate for failed “trickle-down” strategies, such as having the government give a trillion dollars to financial institutions for worthless assets.
Yet these economic advisors cringe at the idea of the government giving money to
people in need.
Lawrence C. Johnson
THANKS TO ERIN CONLEY
I want to commend my friend and colleague Erin Conley for her service to Springfield District 186 and the entire community. Erin spent countless hours over four years as a school board member and president working tirelessly to strengthen our district and schools. Over her four years, She had a strong record of accomplishment. She advocated for and helped secure additional high school social workers, alternative education options, expansion of gifted education programs, school safety initiatives and $88 million of district-wide facility upgrades.
Early in her tenure, she advocated for air-conditioning all schools in the
district, dismissing calls that it could never be done. Now, District186 has a
phased plan for air-conditioning all buildings. Furthermore, as board
president, she led the transition of a new superintendent and worked closely
with him to implement many reforms. She also helped negotiate fair
teachers/staff contracts and pushed for active student, parent and community
involvement, school recycling and much more.
Corporations and unions have become an invasive species in the political
process. If a person is ineligible to vote in a district outside their own,
should that person still have the right to influence the outcome of a election
in that district? Corporations and unions cannot physically punch cards inside
voting booths (try asking for their voter registration card!), so why are they
allowed to influence the outcome of an election by channeling campaign money to
candidates running in that district? Shouldn’t the only people allowed to contribute money to candidates in that district
simply be the citizens of voting age in that district and no one else?
I’m well aware of the argument about money equaling speech. But if “We the people” can show a compelling interest that limiting speech from outsiders is in our
best interest, that speech can and should be limited. For example, I possess
the cherished freedoms of speech, religion and assembly, but do I possess the
freedom to physically enter and occupy your home to exercise those rights? Of