The op-ed “As Dexter Reed shooting shows, pretextual traffic stops don’t enhance public safety” (April 19) is out of touch with reality. Time and time again, we hear about out-of-control drive-by shootings, carjackings, smash and grabs with vehicles, robberies, etc., menacing our city. What’s the common denominator in the commission of these crimes? If you guessed cars, you would be right.
If anything else, we need more stops, not fewer.
— Mike Rice, Chicago
One fact isn’t being reported
It is sad that Dexter Reed was shot and killed by Chicago police officers, but every time there is mention that the officers fired 96 times, it also needs to be mentioned that, according to authorities, Dexter Reed shot several times at the officers, wounding one of them, before they shot back.
The whole incident is a damn shame, but please report all of the facts.
— Chip Uchtman, Skokie
What end does this stop serve?
I agree with the editorial about the Dexter Reed shooting ( “It’s 76 shots that are hard for today’s Chicago to talk about, but that kill a kid just the same,” April 17) that outrage is misplaced when it is aimed simply at the number of shots fired by police or “Justice for Dexter.” But I think the editorial also misses the mark.
We are outraged that our city police are having shootouts over traffic violations and that a family is gunned down in their yard by unknown gunmen. The editorial board criticizing “progressives” for seeming to make more noise about one and not enough noise about the other frankly adds to my outrage. How does the editorial not feed what the board calls “political divisions” and “ideological polarization”?
We want our police to find the bad guys and get them off the streets. We know they need the help of the community to do that. I think many of us in Chicago, progressive or not, find it hard to understand how unmarked police cars making traffic stops with guns drawn serves that end.
— Maureen Gorman, Chicago
Renew environmental resolve
For more than half a century, Earth Day has offered an opportunity to recognize the beauty and fragility of our natural environment. Each generation inherits a sacred obligation to care for the glory of God’s creation, and throughout our history, Americans have come together in service of that responsibility, whether by protecting our nation’s natural wonders through the National Park System or preserving clean air to breathe and clean water to drink through the Environmental Protection Agency. Now, President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats are carrying on that proud tradition that we pursue a bold and essential environmental agenda.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow three years ago, the world came together to set visionary goals for our collective fight against the climate crisis. Shortly after, the House passed landmark legislation to deliver the largest-ever federal climate investment, lower families’ energy costs and build a stronger, more sustainable economy.
Now more than ever, we see the urgency and necessity of having energy independence through a clean energy future. Democrats will not relent until we realize Biden’s ambitious vision of slashing carbon pollution in half by 2030 and having a carbon-neutral economy by 2050. With the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress took further action to advance environmental justice for all — delivering historic funding to help get the lead out of our children’s drinking water, expand sustainable transportation and clean up legacy pollution disproportionately harming communities of color.
Americans born today will live to see the next century, and the decisions we make now will determine whether they inherit a clean, healthy planet. This Earth Day, let us renew our resolve to secure for our children and grandchildren the bright future they deserve.
— Paul Bacon, Hallandale Beach, Florida
Spring flowers bring much joy
Daffodils are smiles on the face of spring. Aren’t they lovely?
— Robert T. Jenkins, Grayslake
Terrifying expansion of powers
The recent editorial (“FISA needs to be reauthorized — and broadened to take on fentanyl scourge,” April 15) commending the House for voting to extend intelligence agencies’ surveillance authority under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act contains a rather glaring omission. Nowhere does the editorial note that the bill passed by the House gives the government unprecedented authority to make businesses and contractors conduct surveillance on its behalf.
Currently, Section 702 allows the government to enlist communications providers, such as AT&T and Google, to assist with spying operations. But the bill the Tribune Editorial Board endorsed would broaden that authority to include any service provider (subject to a few exceptions) with access to communications equipment like servers and routers.
Newsrooms and journalists, at the Tribune and everywhere else, would be even more vulnerable to surveillance than they already are.
I’m not the only one voicing these concerns. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden calls the bill “one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history.” Marc Zwillinger, an adviser to the court that oversees FISA, predicted that the “overly broad” language “will be interpreted to cover a variety of services.” Civil liberties organizations from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Center for Democracy and Technology are also sounding the alarm.
I think the House was wrong to renew existing Section 702 surveillance powers absent an amendment to ensure intelligence agencies don’t unlawfully search Americans’ communications without a warrant, as they have before. Clearly, the Tribune Editorial Board disagrees. But at least the editorial acknowledges that issue. It omits entirely that the bill the House passed could turn businesses and contractors into involuntary government informants.
Tribune readers deserved to know that the House’s legislation contains an unprecedented and alarming expansion of government surveillance, opposed not just by “far-right bomb-throwers” but by lawmakers, experts and advocates across the political spectrum.
If the Tribune Editorial Board doesn’t mind that, it should have explained why. It’s unfortunate that it instead neglected to share that information at all.
— Seth Stern, director of advocacy, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Evanston
Example of great communicators
If there’s a silver lining to the passing of Robert MacNeil, it’s that we are allowed to pause and reflect on what made him a pioneer in TV journalism. I almost wrote that we’re “forced“ instead of “allowed to reflect,” but that wasn’t his style.
In a time when the loudest, most garish content commands our attention, MacNeil, Jim Lehrer and a scant few others showed us in a professional, understated manner how people should communicate with each other. I keep hoping it will catch on.
It’s more than just relaying current events. MacNeil and “The Robert MacNeil Report,” which became “PBS NewsHour,” reminded me of the 1960s “Huntley-Brinkley Report”: straightforward, no-frills reporting.
Thanks to the current adept “PBS NewsHour” team, viewers were welcomed to commiserate over MacNeil’s passing as they did with Lehrer and Gwen Ifill.
Network news is a profession. “PBS NewsHour” is a calling.
— Jim Newton, Itasca
High prices are affecting many
Thank you for printing the letter from Charles Wilt of Cary (“Rising prices,” April 14). Many of us are finding that our retirement income is not covering what it did two years ago. This is because of the 25% rise in grocery prices since 2021, as former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich reports, as well as prices for housing, gas and even of fast-food options in my neighborhood.
Prices are really affecting so many of us on fixed incomes. Why is the reporting only on inflation that has receded, so we are told? Prices are remaining high in spite of inflation numbers.
— Janice Gintzler, Crestwood
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
