As a Chicagoan hopeful for the opportunity that our city has under Eileen O’Neill Burke’s leadership of the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, I object to Laura Washington’s ill-conceived attempt (“Cook County state’s attorney’s race is a test of the ‘Vallas effect,'” March 18) to turn voters against O’Neill Burke Burke at the eleventh hour by accusing her of espousing the beliefs of some of her supporters.
Washington associates Burke with the phrase “tough on crime” because it’s a heavily politicized phase that could have the effect of scaring some voters in what she calls a “deep-blue political territory.” Let’s replace that phrase with the word “accountability.” O’Neill Burke is focused on accountability.
The state’s attorney’s office should be about process, organization and accountability. The law is already in place. The state’s attorney’s office is meant to uphold public safety by the administration of justice. To execute the fair and efficient administration of justice takes an organized leader who knows the office inside and out, has deep, intricate knowledge of the law and knows how to appropriately utilize prosecutorial discretion to ensure justice.
If you read O’Neill Burke’s background, it is hard to disagree with her experience being extremely relevant for this role. She has 10 years in the state’s attorney’s office, seven years as a criminal defense attorney and 15 years as a judge. She has committed her career to the fair application of the law. If you hear O’Neill Burke speak for just five minutes, you learn something valuable about the application of law and understand that she has absolute command of the law and the processes and procedures to enforce the law justly.
There are diverse opinions in this city, as there are in every city. Diversity of thought is what makes cities wonderful. However, I think we can agree on the fact that everyone wants and deserves safety, and I know many of us, including O’Neill Burke, believe that safety and justice are not two diametrically opposed standards.
O’Neill Burke has formed a coalition of diverse groups of voters who want a more vibrant and safe city. She has clearly defined what she is about, and her experience, deep understanding of the state’s attorney’s office and the justice system, and passion for Chicago make her a candidate primed to change the city for the better.
That is what should be taken into account when determining whom to vote for.
— Jessica Dadosky, Chicago
Washington’s column a hit job
Unprofessional character assassinations of a candidate are never appropriate, but most especially on the eve of an election when there is no time to answer. Laura Washington, an experienced journalist, knows this, which makes her March 18 column so objectionable.
Her thesis is that Eileen O’Neill Burke is like Paul Vallas, who had “ties to John Catanzara, the inflammatory president of Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police” and received “massive” contributions from “Republican and conservative interests.” Washington’s language exudes bias: While Clayton Harris III “raised” contributions, O’Neill Burke “hauled in” donations from “conservative donors.” Washington, a political reporter, can’t understand that given the Democratic Party’s dominance, a Republican will frequently donate in a Democratic primary because that is where the office holder is determined.
Washington’s efforts to tie O’Neill Burke to Catanzara and his baggage reach a new low in journalistic integrity. After slamming Catanzara for his bigotry and support for Donald Trump, she reports that he is urging his police officers to vote for O’Neill Burke.
Washington then asks: How can a candidate for state’s attorney “be embraced and backed by the likes of Catanzara?” If Washington troubled herself to read a March 8 story in the Sun-Times on the topic, she’d learn that “Burke’s campaign said she ‘rejects’ the endorsement and called Catanzara’s comments inappropriate.” Also, Burke’s opponent, Clayton Harris III, met with the Fraternal Order of Police during the campaign.
Washington’s election eve hit job is shameful.
— Charles W. Mulaney Jr., Chicago
‘Aging’ op-ed ignores disparities
I am writing to express my thoughts on Christine Ledbetter’s recent op-ed regarding aging and the stigma associated with it (“Aging comes with stigma. Let’s admire the defiant.,” March 14). While Ledbetter brings attention to an important issue, there are certain aspects that I believe require further examination.
Ledbetter fails to address the stark contrast between the experiences of individuals such as Joni Mitchell, Jimmy Carter and Martha Stewart, who have access to premium health care, and the experiences of countless others who struggle to afford basic medical necessities. These prominent figures may not have to worry about rationing medicine or doctor visits due to lack of funds, but the same cannot be said for the majority of older adults.
For many seniors, particularly those living on fixed incomes or without adequate insurance coverage, accessing essential health care services can be a daunting challenge. From exorbitant prescription drug costs to long wait times for specialist appointments, the barriers to quality care are significant. Ledbetter’s failure to acknowledge this disparity undermines the severity of the issue and perpetuates misconceptions about aging and health care access.
Furthermore, Ledbetter overlooks the realities faced by older adults in emergency situations. While individuals like Mitchell, Carter and Stewart may have the privilege of promptly securing a room in the emergency department, countless others are forced to endure agonizing wait times due to overcrowding and resource shortages. These disparities in access to timely and dignified care underscore the need for systemic reforms to ensure equitable health care outcomes for all older adults.
While I appreciate Ledbetter’s efforts to shed light on the stigma surrounding aging, it is essential to acknowledge the broader socioeconomic factors that exacerbate disparities in health care access. By overlooking the experiences of those who do not enjoy the same privileges, we risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes and neglecting the urgent need for systemic change.
— David Hubbell, Chicago
Vaccines have done much good
I had the good fortune to practice pediatrics for 45 years in the Chicago metropolitan area until my retirement.
During this time, I witnessed great advances in medicine, from new drugs and treatments to new procedures such as ultrasound, CT scan and MRI. There have been discoveries in genetics, surgery and organ transplantation.
We now have emergency room physicians, hospitalists and superspecialists in every field. However, in my opinion, the single greatest advance has been in the development of vaccines. Vaccines for measles, mumps rubella, chickenpox, pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, rotavirus and others have changed the world.
I have witnessed the practice of medicine before, and after, these vaccines became available. The improvements in the health of children are wondrous and ongoing.
I am unable to understand the anti-vaccination state of mind when the evidence for the efficacy and safety of the vaccines is overwhelmingly positive.
— Dr. Gerald Lasin, Deerfield
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
