Correction
In last week's cover story ["Why Andy Won't Die"], I should have said only one of Andy Sallenger's surviving siblings now has a substance abuse problem. That sibling is in treatment to resolve the problem.
Dusty Rhodes
Would a draft have stopped the Iraq war?
To the editor:
A letter [March 13] argues against a military draft because the rich and the privileged would avoid service. As if they are flocking to combat opportunity in a volunteer force.
The greater the chance of being forced to fight in a war, the more likely a citizenry will examine reasons for a conflict. If inequities exist in a draft, citizens examine a war all the more closely.
Without a draft, opposition to the Vietnam War might have been far less, and the cost far higher.
A draft serves not only to provide the government with military personnel, but to provide citizens with a direct and immediate personal stake in what's happening. If a conflict be based on ignorance and deceit, skeptics become active in efforts to stop the war, instead of doing nothing while the direct costs are paid by someone else.
Richard Lawrence Miller
Springfield
Still seeking justice for Andrew Sallenger
To the editor:
I am glad that the story of Andrew Sallenger finally got the treatment it deserves ["Why Andy Won't Die," March 13]. For far too long the Sallenger family has had to work very hard to get the attention of mainstream media in Springfield. Let's see how much more justice they will get.
Ted Keylon
Springfield
The sky is not falling!
To the editor
Re: "The Return of the ERA" [February 27]. Let me provide the full text (52 words) of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, commonly referred to as the "Alice Paul Version" (1923, 1943):
Section 1:Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
Section 2:The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
In recent weeks I've received several letters from frightened women proposing all types of unfounded consequences, which can only be attributed to the "Chicken Little" syndrome. The sky is not falling! Just where in the text do they see a mandate that women be equal to men? Woman and men are different, and what the ERA seeks is equity under the law for women. ERA has nothing to do with drafting women. Rapes in Iraq, gambling with babies' lives, rampant abortions, and the demise of the American family are scare tactics from the 19th and 20th centuries.
Secondly, one month ago the proposed ERA passed the House Judiciary I Civil Law Committee by a bipartisan margin of 10 to 6--Republicans and Democrats.
Finally, this is not a partisan issue. Many Republican men and women support passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in Illinois.
Check the facts against unfounded fears.
Mary E. Reljic
Chairperson
ERA Task Force 2001-2004
American Association of University Women-Illinois, Inc.
Lindenhurst
Did "silly" make the list?
Give moralists a few seeds of power, and they will certainly grow a fool's paradise. No, I am not speaking (directly) of the current bully-mongering White House Administration, but of disturbing incidents occurring in Springfield. I refer in general to people who are so overly sensitive to moral outrages that they fling themselves into crusades against any perceived threats to their sanitized social order: I refer specifically to an incident which happened at Barnes & Noble last Thursday.
As has been tradition for the last several years, the local poetry circle, Poets and Writers Literary Forum (PWLF), held their bi-monthly public reading in the coffee shop area of the store. Poetry is (or should be) the voice of social enlightenment, a method for using language to entertain, to inspire, and to force us to question our social responsibilities. Unfortunately, ours is a politically correct society: over the past couple years these poets had adapted to an ever growing sense of social squeamishness. One of the members read an article verbatim from the news concerning a ruckus raised on an American college campus. Apparently students built a giant effigy of male genitalia that offended certain factions of women on campus. In the article, the word "penis" is used--and was so read. The reader prefaced his reading with a warning that some strong language was about to take place. The warning fell on deaf ears; however, those same ears were more than capable of extracting "offensive words." After the reading, PWLF members were shocked to learn that some customer incidental to the reading had flung himself into an outrage over this word, and even threatened to sue Barnes & Noble for traumatizing his child with such a vulgar, public display. In response, someone from the store allegedly gave the poets a list of words they are no longer permitted to use. Ironic, considering most of these words and worse can be found on any shelf in the store, or on the lips of most grade school students.
The fault for this censorship does not rest on Barnes & Noble: the current evil nature of the legal system forces them into a ridiculous reaction to a ridiculous person with a need for empowerment, lest they face some equally ridiculous lawsuit. Without this legal threat, reasonable people would not take this person seriously. In the first place, the word is not a vulgarism: "penis" is the proper anatomical word, found in all dictionaries and reference books. I suppose the offended party would prefer these books switch to some infantile euphemism such as pee-pee, dinky doo, or thingy-wingy, or better yet eliminate all references to "our naughty bits." Apparently this man wants his child to believe all people have the anatomy of a Ken doll. Secondly, it is much more offensive to know this man's child is being raised so protected from the real world that mere words can be a "traumatic" experience (a note to Child and Family Services: if ever there has been an example of mental abuse towards a child, this father is it). The man's whining is especially insulting in relation to children who truly are traumatized by actual physical and mental abuse. In addition, like it or not, vulgarity has crept into common language, and will likely remain there. Although redundant and cliche, foul language, when used colloquially, can also be quite powerful. Dammit, language would be a lot less colorful without the inclusion of a little cussing now and then.
Finally, we all know this outrage has little to do with the child and all to do with the father's own agenda. This is a prime example of how children get whored for parents' causes. (These are the same people who move next door to Deja Vu and then complain, "What do I tell my children about this business?" As if on hearing that men will pay to look at naked women their kids will fall into convulsions or deep comas.) It is moralistic pimping to hide behind the guise of protecting your child just to push your weight around, mister.
We simply must stop permitting self-proclaimed moral judges from dictating public consciousness. The poet Alexander Pope once noted, "The worst of madmen is a saint run mad." If ever there is an example of politically correct madness, this outraged saint is it. Pope also said, "At every word a reputation dies." In this man's case, the word is "penis."
Sam B. Davis
Dawson
