|
Published: July 12, 2008 07:01 pm
Readers' Forum: July 13, 2008
Reviewer misses point of Crossroads’ ‘Alice’
I was quite dismayed to read Rachel Wedding’s critical review (July 3) of “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” the Crossroads Repertory Theatre’s production at ISU. She criticized the play for not having stronger visuals (such as “wildly flamboyant costuming, colorful eye popping sets”) and seemed to expect something like the technicolor Walt Disney cartoon. But this expectation precisely misses the point of the play.
At the play’s beginning, Alice does not have an imagination. She is getting her portrait painted and can only see the literal, the flat lines outlining her shape. But when Alice walks through the painting and enters a world of chaos and the unexpected, her own imagination takes shape. Lew Hackleman’s direction was spot on. The set may have seemed spare, but the inventive props and the talented ensemble of actors brought each character to life — and the audience is asked to take that journey with Alice. We are asked to imagine.
What more could we want from theater? One of the most disturbing ideas from Wedding’s review was that children are used to being over-stimulated visually — with video games and special effects — and that the theater should get on board. Stick with the program. But this misses the point again. Theater is one of the last best places left for children (and adults) to go to exercise their mind’s eye, to learn empathy for others through human drama or comedy, to stretch our imagination that has become desensitized by cool technology. Everything is not painted in. We are actively invited to participate.
The other last best place that we can do this is through reading. Lewis Carroll’s original works about Alice are magical because of what the reader brings to the experience, the vivid pictures of Wonderland created in the mind’s eye. The play, too, does this amazingly. When Alice returns to the “real” world, she now has an imagination — and we, too, as the audience are better for it.
Terre Haute is truly blessed to have a professional theater company perform here every summer. The offerings are enriching and full (”The Underpants”, “The Last 5 Years”, “Macbeth”). There should never be an empty seat in the house. I encourage everyone here to take advantage of the magical world that theater creates. There is still time. The season ends July 26. Be open to the experience. Walk through the painting.
— Susan Dehler
Terre Haute
Goode’s position on energy is obsolete
Greg Goode, Republican candidate for Congress from Indiana’s Eighth District, has recently spoken out about the urgent need to begin oil exploration and drilling as a means of promoting our nation’s energy independence and relieving the upward pressure on domestic gas prices. There is no plausible basis for believing that this can be an effective strategy for accomplishing these ends.
Consider the findings of a 2004 study by the Department of Energy on the likely recoverable oil deposits in the most frequently cited source of unexploited U.S. petroleum reserves, Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The expected (mean) estimate of technically recoverable oil in ANWR is 10.3 billion barrels, an amount that constitutes about 5 percent of the recoverable oil in the combined lower 48 states. If exploration were to begin today it is estimated that by 2021 these reserves could (optimistically) contribute about 1 million barrels per day to meet our needs.
This sounds impressive until it is realized that our current daily consumption amounts to 19.4 million barrels. The study furthers notes that exploitation of ANWR’s reserves would at best reduce our dependence on imported oil from around 70 percent of domestic consumption to around 66 percent.
Inclusion of other (estimated) off-shore resources in the Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast does little to alter this picture. The most optimistic scenario for the first of these sources involves a recent discovery off the Louisiana coast that estimates reserves anywhere between 3 and 15 billion barrels. Even if the higher end of this range were actually realized, it would represent a minor contribution to global petroleum supply. Given the continued growth in global demand for oil, we cannot realistically expect these discoveries to change the fact of “peak oil” and we cannot expect a return to the gasoline prices of even a year ago.
Goode’s campaign promises to pursue policies that will allow us to drill our way out of our current energy predicament. It is a false promise and one that only works to postpone the search for energy solutions based on alternatives to a resource that renders us evermore dependent and vulnerable as a nation.
A close analysis of Goode’s campaign promise should be considered particularly in light of the fact that Congress has recently rejected a bill that would provide tax breaks to those actually seeking to develop the very alternatives that are urgently required.
Eighth District voters should also think carefully before sending to Washington another representative whose energy-related thinking is so clearly obsolete.
— Donald G. Richards
Professor of Economics
Indiana State University
Ideals that are worth fighting for
Arthur Foulkes has written an excellent column on the American Revolution, the natural rights fought for, and the declaration to secure those rights. I thank the Tribune-Star for printing the well-researched piece.
Instead of breathing in the fresh air of liberty like our forefathers, Mr. Foulkes gives an example of the flooded basement air we are now expected to enjoy. He writes, “… a poster on the wall of an American presidential candidate’s Terre Haute campaign office recently included the slogan: ‘We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about society.’”
Two presidential candidates come closer to the founders. Independent candidate Ralph Nader supports a “Liberty Bill” whose writing would include the 27 amendments. Libertarian Bob Barr has promised to create a White House position to defend privacy and civil liberties. (And I don’t support paper money nor another White House position.)
Mr. Foulkes asks if these ideals are worth fighting for. My answer is they are the only things worth fighting for.
— Ed Gluck
Terre Haute
No logic in effort to suspend gas tax
In a July 1 news release, Jill Long Thompson called on Gov. Daniels to suspend the state’s gasoline tax. While everyone is inconvenienced and hurt by high energy costs in some way, more damage would occur if Indiana’s “Gas Tax” is repealed as Jill Long Thompson calls for.
Any government’s fundamental and only true purpose is to provide those goods and services that no one individual, firm, or collaboration would be willing or able to produce by themselves. This includes creating and maintaining infrastructure, law and order, and economic development.
Permanently eliminating the state’s gasoline taxes would be disastrous to the overall stability of the state. If the state’s outlays are greater than its income streams, then everyone will be taxed more to recover the difference. This action would send businesses, investments, and individuals packing quicker than would the supposed benefits of a “gas tax holiday” would.
Even if Gov. Daniels repealed the tax on a short-term basis (Labor Day weekend, for example), then yes the price would drop. But demand would immediately spike, driving prices into higher territories even if the tax were still in place relative to the status quo. Jill Long Thompson, like everyone else, is looking for a decline in prices. Increasing net demand is not the correct way to do it.
Jill Long Thompson is correct when she made the following statement. “[Gov. Daniels] has the legal authority to suspend the sales tax on gasoline immediately, and today I am calling on him to finally use that authority to help Hoosiers.” However, just because the gun is loaded and sitting on the mantel does not mean that the gun must go off.
— Ryan Grossman
Student, Indiana State University
Evansville
What changed on roundabouts?
Late last week I was advised that recently a change-order was issued eliminating the roundabouts originally designed as part of the Brown Avenue North Extension project. Specifically the intersections at Locust Street and Maple Avenue will be standard intersections.
Needless to say I was stunned. Would Terre Haute once again make a short-sighted decision on streets and roads? Does anyone remember or wonder why we only have two I-70 exits.
Then Sunday’s Indianapolis Star published a special report on roundabouts in general and Carmel’s success in particular. How timely! Perhaps we should reprint the article.
In the urban environment roundabouts have proven to be effective in traffic flow, efficient in accident reduction, economical if stoplights are eliminated and environmentally-friendly through gas savings and appearance. The major downside seems to be some initial confusion as people get used to them. We can work through that.
Questions:
1. Were the roundabouts eliminated?
2. Was there any sort of study or “due diligence” prior to this decision?
3. What kind of intersection will be constructed? Think about the stop signs at Ohio and Brown or stop lights at 25th and Ohio? Do we want more of this? Are these intersections superior to roundabouts?
4. Was there some sort of public uprising against the use of roundabouts or was it one or two phone calls?
5. Was it really a significant savings on a $13.5 million project?
We have a chance to exhibit some enlightened and forward thinking. Let’s not lose it.
— Ted Hazledine
Terre Haute
Pray for those who spew hate
The recent cowardly actions that resulted in the painting of a Nazi symbol on the steps of a Christian church call for response. Such desecration at the Allen Chapel AME Church was an act of violence against the Church, its members and this community that must not be condoned or ignored. The perpetrators acted like thieves under the cover of darkness and sneakily defaced the church with their unwelcome, broken cross — leaving their racist message.
This violent act is a manifestation of what many of us already know — that there are still hate-filled people in our communities. They need to be exposed and stopped from inflicting suffering on others. Ultimately, they need to experience healing.
Violence should not be countered with violence. The God of nonviolence guides us to always respond with love and never retaliate with violence.
We call on the community to join us to pray for the perpetrators of this heinous act, that they might repent and seek forgiveness for their actions; and to pray for those harmed by their vicious actions, that they might show boundless compassion.
We call on the community to stay resistant to systemic injustice and institutionalized violence and to take concerted action to eradicate the forces of evil and violence from our midst.
May we learn to speak the truth of peace and embody the spirit of nonviolence.
— Sister Patty Fillenwarth
— Sister Jenny Howard
— Thressa Bynum
— Connie Morris
On behalf of the Sisters of Providence Anti-Racism Team
What changes do Dems propose?
Today all I hear from Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic Party is “change”. Some of the changes they talk about are from President Jimmy Carter’s administration (like windfall taxes on oil companies which raised higher gas prices and lines at the pumps).
They are still against new oil drilling, nuclear power plants and more refineries. They tell us drilling in Alaska (or offshore) won’t do any good. Think about that. If it was true, why don’t we subsidize them to not produce oil and gas, similar to the way we did farmers to not raise crops.
Since the Democrats took over Congress, they haven’t improved anything. Gasoline was $2.58 a gallon (it’s now $4.08). Oil was $78 a barrel (it’s now $136). Wow! What a change! Is that what you want? And they’re still against more production to help lower the prices.
Granted we need alternatives, but nothing is immediately available. Even ethanol is not a good choice. We, as taxpayers, are subsidizing it at 51 cents per gallon, not to mention government grants and tax abatements to the companies who produce it. Without the subsidizing it would probably be $5.50 a gallon or more and look at what this practice has done to our food prices.
I heard the other day that a hydrogen car would cost $1 million if available. Does that sound like a practical solution?
In addition to their views about the fuel situation look at how they feel about the Second Amendment, gay marriage and abortion. Then look at Obama’s association with Farrakhan and his anti-American minister (Jeremiah Wright) of 20 years. Who really knows Barack Hussein Obama’s true feelings for America?
— Jim McKittrick
Marshall, Ill.
• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.
|
|
Print this story
E-mail this story
Discuss this story
