Letters, 11/29: A lesson from history
I used to have a neighbor who was as crazy as a coot, so I can understand where Cal Thomas is coming from. Old Mr. Wilson used to believe that the Germans could have won World War I had it not been for the weaklings back home in Germany who were sick of paying, suffering and dying for it.
Cal Thomas and Mr. Wilson would have gotten along well with their armchair-general hot air. I can see them sitting out on the driveway, beers in hand, discussing how weak civilians are, how weepy moms can be and how easily wars can be won with simple determination and firepower. Bless their hearts.
However, Lester Grau of the Foreign Military Studies Office in Leavenworth, Kan., is a serious scholar of military history, and his 1995 paper “The Soviet War in Afghanistan: History and Harbinger of Future War?” states that “The Afghan-Soviet War … helped trigger the collapse of the greatest empire of modern times. Lessons learned from this conflict were gathered by both sides. Whatever else these lessons may show, the most fundamental of them is that no army, however sophisticated, well trained, materially rich, numerically overwhelming and ruthless, can succeed on the battlefield if it is not psychologically fit and motivated for the fight. The force, however destitute in material advantages and numbers, which can rely on the moral qualities of a strong faith, stubborn determination, individualism and unending patience will always be the winner.”
Will the United States follow the Soviet Union and Cal Thomas into collapse, or will we learn from history?
Paul W. Knopp, Lincoln
No, you get over it!
I am writing in response to Colleen Roser-Martin’s letter in the Nov. 22 edition of the Lincoln Journal Star.
I am not writing to argue with Roser-Martin over how “low” the Democrats have “stooped” concerning political issues. Although I do not agree with what she has said, I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
On that note, I’m afraid the Democratic Party won’t ever “get over it.” The United States of America was founded on the principle of free speech and, while Roser-Martin may believe we have descended to an ultimate low to “discredit President Bush,” we are simply exercising our right to free speech and doing what we believe is necessary to preserve this great nation and the rights of its citizens.
Never have I heard a member of the Democratic Party ask the Republican Party to “get over” their agenda. Without differing opinions, I’m pretty sure the United States would be referred to as a totalitarian state rather than a democratic federal government.
When the Republican Party is willing to “get over” their “fabricated stories” and their “only agendas” of pro-life, anti-gay marriage and undying support of a president whose national approval rating has dropped to an astounding 37 percent, maybe the Democrats will consider “getting over” their agenda.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” I don’t believe he was referring only to the “things that matter” to one group.
Katie Navratil, Lincoln
Seek rational thought
In his commentary in the Lincoln Journal Star on Nov. 20, Charles Krauthammer makes the assertion that intelligent design as a science is “a fraud.” He then supports this thesis statement by making personal attacks on Pat Robertson and certain school board members in Dover, Pa. He assures us that many people of faith such as Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton are among our greatest scientists and contrasts them to intelligent design theorists.
Perhaps Krauthammer should focus his intellect on people who are more worthy of his attention, since he prefers attacking people to making objective arguments. If people like Einstein or Newton were around today, Krauthammer and others like him would undoubtedly consider them too difficult to take on and ignore them. A judgment of intelligent design theory should not be made based on the view of a common man on the street or an off-the-wall preacher.
It seems unfortunate to me that because of people like Krauthammer and Robertson, society will have to wait until the religious fanaticism embroiling this issue blows over before it can make an objective judgment. Perhaps the fanatics and simple-minded will return to their old friend, the place and time of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. I am hopeful this will happen, because the writers of the “Left Behind” series, Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, have started writing a prequel series.
Until the Second Coming, intelligent people must endure these ubiquitous irrelevant arguments and wait for rationality to make its appearance.
Ben Kissling, Lincoln
Group home oversight
I would like to respond to the letters from Jeff Schnittker and Susan Browne (LJS, Nov. 21) regarding their disappointment in the city council vote denying the addition of an extra resident to existing group homes. Like Schnittker and Browne, I am opposed to discrimination against anyone with developmental disabilities, and I believe disabled individuals can and should be part of our neighborhoods and our city.
The problem lies in the fact that some group homes do indeed house residents who are violent and are considered a risk to others. I welcome having disabled residents in my neighborhood. We have neighbors who have developmentally disabled individuals living with them, and I am glad my daughter gets a chance to know and become friends with them.
It is the oversight of those individuals who pose a threat to others that concerns me. We have a responsibility to do everything we can to keep our children and citizens safe. This includes keeping our developmentally disabled citizens safe from being preyed upon by others with disabilities who are violent. Although the number of incidents involving violent group-home residents are few, as Browne points out, I still believe that having even one child in Lincoln molested and another stabbed in the past three years is too many.
My hope is that we can find a way to welcome citizens with disabilities into our neighborhoods while maintaining strict oversight and spacing requirements for those individuals categorized as a threat to others. This will not prevent problems (the man who molested the boy at school was not considered a violence risk), but it should certainly help. How we can accomplish this I do not know, but I welcome the efforts of all of our elected officials (federal, state and local) in this endeavor.
Cathy Beecham, Lincoln
Cal Thomas and Mr. Wilson would have gotten along well with their armchair-general hot air. I can see them sitting out on the driveway, beers in hand, discussing how weak civilians are, how weepy moms can be and how easily wars can be won with simple determination and firepower. Bless their hearts.
However, Lester Grau of the Foreign Military Studies Office in Leavenworth, Kan., is a serious scholar of military history, and his 1995 paper “The Soviet War in Afghanistan: History and Harbinger of Future War?” states that “The Afghan-Soviet War … helped trigger the collapse of the greatest empire of modern times. Lessons learned from this conflict were gathered by both sides. Whatever else these lessons may show, the most fundamental of them is that no army, however sophisticated, well trained, materially rich, numerically overwhelming and ruthless, can succeed on the battlefield if it is not psychologically fit and motivated for the fight. The force, however destitute in material advantages and numbers, which can rely on the moral qualities of a strong faith, stubborn determination, individualism and unending patience will always be the winner.”
Will the United States follow the Soviet Union and Cal Thomas into collapse, or will we learn from history?
Paul W. Knopp, Lincoln
No, you get over it!
I am writing in response to Colleen Roser-Martin’s letter in the Nov. 22 edition of the Lincoln Journal Star.
I am not writing to argue with Roser-Martin over how “low” the Democrats have “stooped” concerning political issues. Although I do not agree with what she has said, I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
On that note, I’m afraid the Democratic Party won’t ever “get over it.” The United States of America was founded on the principle of free speech and, while Roser-Martin may believe we have descended to an ultimate low to “discredit President Bush,” we are simply exercising our right to free speech and doing what we believe is necessary to preserve this great nation and the rights of its citizens.
Never have I heard a member of the Democratic Party ask the Republican Party to “get over” their agenda. Without differing opinions, I’m pretty sure the United States would be referred to as a totalitarian state rather than a democratic federal government.
When the Republican Party is willing to “get over” their “fabricated stories” and their “only agendas” of pro-life, anti-gay marriage and undying support of a president whose national approval rating has dropped to an astounding 37 percent, maybe the Democrats will consider “getting over” their agenda.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” I don’t believe he was referring only to the “things that matter” to one group.
Katie Navratil, Lincoln
Seek rational thought
In his commentary in the Lincoln Journal Star on Nov. 20, Charles Krauthammer makes the assertion that intelligent design as a science is “a fraud.” He then supports this thesis statement by making personal attacks on Pat Robertson and certain school board members in Dover, Pa. He assures us that many people of faith such as Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton are among our greatest scientists and contrasts them to intelligent design theorists.
Perhaps Krauthammer should focus his intellect on people who are more worthy of his attention, since he prefers attacking people to making objective arguments. If people like Einstein or Newton were around today, Krauthammer and others like him would undoubtedly consider them too difficult to take on and ignore them. A judgment of intelligent design theory should not be made based on the view of a common man on the street or an off-the-wall preacher.
It seems unfortunate to me that because of people like Krauthammer and Robertson, society will have to wait until the religious fanaticism embroiling this issue blows over before it can make an objective judgment. Perhaps the fanatics and simple-minded will return to their old friend, the place and time of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. I am hopeful this will happen, because the writers of the “Left Behind” series, Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, have started writing a prequel series.
Until the Second Coming, intelligent people must endure these ubiquitous irrelevant arguments and wait for rationality to make its appearance.
Ben Kissling, Lincoln
Group home oversight
I would like to respond to the letters from Jeff Schnittker and Susan Browne (LJS, Nov. 21) regarding their disappointment in the city council vote denying the addition of an extra resident to existing group homes. Like Schnittker and Browne, I am opposed to discrimination against anyone with developmental disabilities, and I believe disabled individuals can and should be part of our neighborhoods and our city.
The problem lies in the fact that some group homes do indeed house residents who are violent and are considered a risk to others. I welcome having disabled residents in my neighborhood. We have neighbors who have developmentally disabled individuals living with them, and I am glad my daughter gets a chance to know and become friends with them.
It is the oversight of those individuals who pose a threat to others that concerns me. We have a responsibility to do everything we can to keep our children and citizens safe. This includes keeping our developmentally disabled citizens safe from being preyed upon by others with disabilities who are violent. Although the number of incidents involving violent group-home residents are few, as Browne points out, I still believe that having even one child in Lincoln molested and another stabbed in the past three years is too many.
My hope is that we can find a way to welcome citizens with disabilities into our neighborhoods while maintaining strict oversight and spacing requirements for those individuals categorized as a threat to others. This will not prevent problems (the man who molested the boy at school was not considered a violence risk), but it should certainly help. How we can accomplish this I do not know, but I welcome the efforts of all of our elected officials (federal, state and local) in this endeavor.
Cathy Beecham, Lincoln
Copyright © 2002-2008 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.