Updated: September 3, 2013 7:04AM
The graphic with your July 24 article on the CPS budget attempted to capture the top five “gainer” and “loser” schools under CPS’ fiscal year 14 budget. However, it included several new charter schools as “gainers.” These new schools received no funding last year, and therefore all of their funding was deemed a “gain.” Comparing new schools to ones that are facing cuts mischaracterizes the impact of the budget crisis on charter schools and further fuels the myth that charters receive more funding than neighborhood schools, which is not true. Charter schools are also facing severe budget cuts. In reality, there are no “gainers” when the students lose. It’s time for everyone to come together and fix public education funding. It’s time for the education sector and elected officials to fix school funding.
Andrew Broy, President of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools
Energy benchmarking a political ploy
I was recently informed that Mayor Rahm Emanuel has introduced an ordinance called “energy benchmarking.” This ordinance would require buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet to track and report their energy usage, which means that any tenant of a building who does not supply the owner of the building with information concerning their electric usage will result in a fine against the owner. It seems the EPA is at it again. The mayor thinks this will create jobs and improve the economy, which is simply political jargon. If the government really wanted to lower energy costs, it would allow drilling for oil, excavation of coal and natural gas. Further it could reduce the taxes on such energy. But no, it is bowing to the dictatorship of the national EPA. If anyone has ever studied astronomy, they know the Earth has gone through numerous ice ages and warm periods. This occurred well before the introduction of the internal combustion engine. Nevertheless, it is politically advantageous to these politicians to promote the “green world.” It is time that regular people rise up and stop this atrocious governmental action.
Steven R. Heuberger, Libertyville
Regarding your editorial [“Fleeting victories for abortion rights, July 29, 2013], your thinking on the subject is convoluted. You say “Pro-life extremists hide behind claims of protecting a mother and unborn child to disguise their true motivations: restricting women’s rights.” Now why would people who care about defenseless, unborn, innocent babies really have as their main incentive the destroying of “women’s rights?” Advocating for unborn babies shows there are no “women’s rights” in this matter. It is a matter of babies not being destroyed. That is what is meant by pro-life.
A woman does not have the right to kill a baby which is a separate, independent, living being. The mother’s responsibility is to provide nourishment until the baby is born. That is her right, and obligation.
It’s irrelevant when the unborn baby is viable and feels pain. The baby is human at the moment of conception. It’s not going to grow into a dog or cow.
Steve Brestic, Merrionette Park