Dear editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Olsen took the risk of using a primitive incendiary device to illuminate a viaduct. It was a risk because she should have wondered whether it was legal, especially since it could harm anybody who is nearby. What if things blew up, or fell over and set somebody on fire? What if they fell over on a passing car? This kind of risk is not acceptable in a civilized society.
Apparently Olsen is a very nice person for caring so much about poor children in Africa and for going to Sudan like Mother Teresa to help people. And apparently when she was there she learned to use and make primitive incendiary devices, presumably for light. OK, so let’s assume that the Sudanese people Olsen went to visit are very poor and that they do not have lightbulbs or electricity for light and that they are forced to use the primitive lanternlike devices such as the ones Olsen used for her demonstration. Does that make them any safer? No. We should not confuse the good things about Lise Olsen with the stupid things she did. Your article made many attempts to do exactly this, confusing her beliefs in worthwhile causes and her involvement in philanthropic missions with justification for her conduct.
Alan Singer
Olsen’s involvement with animal rights activism was integral to her trial, so it was pertinent to the article. The accounts of individuals quoted in the article, along with Olsen’s biography before the incident, were included not to justify Olsen’s actions or beliefs but rather to provide a frame of reference for exploring the complicated issue of her reaction to her situation and its troubling implications.
