Now
A Few Clouds and Breezy
84.0°
High
92°
Low
71°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 5/15: How would they like it?

Comments 24 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 12:08:02 am CDT

 Now that this election is over, is it my turn to call the candidates’ home phone several times a week and leave annoying recorded messages on their answering machines? Maybe on a Saturday while the candidates are trying to relax at home with their families, I can ring their doorbells every couple hours and litter their lawns with innumerable fliers.

FYI to the campaigners … the last thing anyone wants to think about on a Saturday afternoon (yes, even the one before election day) is politics!

Shelly Monasmith, Aurora

More of the same

I listened to Tom Osborne’s concession speech — such sincerity and such a contrast to Dave Heineman’s “victory” speech — one could close one’s eyes and it could be any politician speaking.

Just once I had hoped to see the vote go to a decent and honorable man who was not beholden to special interest groups and his party establishment. Instead we have just another well-fed GOP politician who is wed to special interest groups, money and his party establishment.

Dorothy Krist, Lincoln

A laughing matter

The other day I was reading the paper and saw a headline that read: “Changing party costs official his election job.” I thought even though I think it’s unethical to change parties temporarily just to try to effect a primary outcome of the political party you don’t agree with, it was my hope they didn’t fire this guy out of vindictiveness.

As I read the article and absorbed what had happened, I could not stop laughing! The people in the restaurant I was at thought I had lost it. It seems Dennis Womack, the Democratic Douglas County deputy election commissioner, got fired because his boss had no choice.

 Womack changed his registration from Democrat to Republican so he could vote in the Republican primary, and an election worker got wind of it. There was a slight problem, you see. The No. 1 legal requirement for the Douglas County deputy election commissioner position is that the person be of a different political party than the election commissioner! The commissioner is Republican!

Dennis should move as far away from Nebraska as he can, because people will bust out laughing every time they see him. This is a perfect example of “poetic justice” or “being too smart by half.”

Brian Kamler, Lincoln

Picture what you preach

We were delighted to read the fine article on bicycle commuting in the May 9 Lincoln Journal Star. It captured much of the joy and many of the rationales for biking to work in Lincoln. It was great to see the sidebar extolling the importance of bike helmets for cyclists and attentiveness for automobile drivers.

However, it was distressing to see that the accompanying photograph showed a bicyclist not wearing a helmet. We know the Journal Star does not like to use posed photographs, but it would have been so much more effective if the Journal Star had taken the time to find a bicyclist wearing a helmet to go along with the fine story.

Ann and Bob Brown, Lincoln

Wesleyan play politicized

For some weeks I had eagerly anticipated attending Nebraska Wesleyan’s production of “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.” Despite its off-putting title, this play is a melodic and charming examination of loyalty and courage, and is based on a real-life situation in my native Texas.

Imagine, then, my chagrin when it became evident that Wesleyan chose to use this delightful piece as a vehicle for yet another tiresome, offensive and puerile attack on Christianity and President Bush.

Nothing in the script or the original staging of the play supports the depiction of the character Melvin P. Thorpe as a crazed televangelist. Indeed, perceptive viewers will note several references in the dialogue that support his intended depiction as a muckraking investigative reporter with no religious overtones whatsoever.

Likewise, the governor of Texas lampooned in the production was, of course, a Democrat.

And please don’t raise the tired old cavil of censorship. No one disputes Wesleyan’s right to present the production in this manner. One may, however, question the judgment and maturity of those responsible.

Early in the play my party of three was entranced and fully intended to return for at least one more performance. Our plans changed as soon as it became evident that Wesleyan chose to value cheap political potshots over entertainment. Their choice also makes it unlikely that we will have enough confidence in their judgment to attend productions there in the future.

David A. Montgomery, Roca

Protests disrespect U.S.

I am the son of immigrants from Mexico. My family arrived legally in this country in 1965. We adopted American traditions and kept our Mexican culture. I am a Gulf War veteran.

My parents are now U.S. citizens, but I must say I have had it with immigrant protests. They all need some common sense!

Protesters should not be chanting “Si Se Puede” because it is offensive and disrespectful. They should be chanting “We Love USA” in English.

Then there is the issue of the National Anthem in Spanish; once again, very offensive and disrespectful. At a minimum, before and at the end of every immigrant rally the National Anthem should be played loudly in English with all of the immigrants standing in silence as a sign of respect for this country.

And I have to comment on the issue of non-American flags. How disrespectful is it to show up at a rally with any flag other than an American flag. I fly one flag at all times, a beautiful American flag.

And then there was the boycott of work and school. Simply put, if I am not sick, I go to work, and my daughter will not stay home from school to make a point for any illegal activity.

These immigrants have accomplished one thing, making the majority of Americans wanting illegal immigrants returned to their own country. I support limited legal immigration and I do vote. I am not insensitive, a bigot or a racist, I am just proud to be an American.

Francisco R. Martinez, Lincoln

NRA makes numbers lie

As a Briton and an American, I get rather tired of the pro-gun folks in this country spouting off bogus statistics concerning gun-related crime in the United Kingdom. For example, Beth Philson’s repetition of NRA-provided statistics concerning the U.K. in her recent letter to the editor. It makes the U.K. seem like some kind of lawless wasteland where every thug on the street is packing heat!

May I direct Philson to the official crime statistics from the U.K. Government Home Office (that’s the same as the U.S. State Department) report: “The Research, Development Violent Crime Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/2005” (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf).

On page 71, third bullet (excuse the pun), note that there were 78 (seventy-eight) gun homicides for the entire United Kingdom (population — 60.5 million) in ’04-’05, up from 68 gun-related homicides the previous year. When the NRA and its gun-toting supporters say there was a 14 percent increase in gun crime in the UK, it sounds scary … when you see the numbers behind the statistic … not so scary, huh?

The latest data for the U.S.A from the Centers for Disease Control is 2003 (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html). There were 30,136 firearm deaths against a population of 290,810,789 in 2003. In 2002 there were 30,242 gun deaths against a population of 287,974,001. Hey, that’s a 0.3 percent decrease. Wow!

So you decide, gentle reader. How violent (with regard to gun deaths) is the U.K. when compared to the U.S.A.? What would you prefer in the U.S.A next year — 78 gun-related deaths or more than 30,000? To put this in perspective, the U.S.A. would need a population of 23 billion people to get to the same gun death rate as the U.K. I know what I’d prefer, and I’m not 100 percent sure that putting more guns on the street is the answer.

Marcus Tooze, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Kristin wrote on May 15, 2006 2:46 am:
" Amen, Francisco! Nicely put! You stated perfectly what we Caucasians get called 'racist' for complaining about - nice to hear it from an immigrant. Kudos to your family for doing things the legal way - welcome to America; I am honored to be your fellow citizen. "
chris wrote on May 15, 2006 5:39 am:
" Hey Marcus, the last time I checked we are in America. We did not give up all of our gun rights like you Brits. Don't compare the US and the UK the two are not the same. We like our guns and I'll bet all the gun loving brits that had to turn their guns over whished they had not. "
JillB wrote on May 15, 2006 6:34 am:
" Thank you, Marcus, for providing some much needed data and common sense to counter the usual NRA propaganda! Hopefully, it will make a few people think - even if just for a moment. "
Lynda wrote on May 15, 2006 6:56 am:
" Francisco, AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
Frank wrote on May 15, 2006 8:24 am:
" Mr. Martinez, I am also proud that you are an American! "
Tim wrote on May 15, 2006 9:00 am:
" The thing to note is that despite Britain's increasingly strict gun control laws, is that the murder rate is not going down despite bold predictions that it would. In the late 19th century, the per capita homicide rate in Britain was between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000. In the late 20th century, after a near ban on gun ownership, the homicide rate stands at 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland has the highest per capita gun ownership rate on the planet and has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. In America, gun crime is recorded as "gun crime." In Britain, gun crime is recorded as a "gun crime" upon final disposition, i.e., a conviction. All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, which tends to underreport the actual number of illegal uses of guns. The law of supply and demand trumps government edict every time. Criminals will always have access to firearms regardless of how strident the law. Real crimefighting means placing the blame on those individuals who disobey the law and holding them accountable. Anything else is a placebo. "
Gary wrote on May 15, 2006 9:02 am:
" Marcus, I agree with you that NRA statistics are not 100% objective. However, the way that you present the statistics is also not objective. You discuss the number of homicides in the U.K., but then go on to discuss every form of firearm death in the U.S., when the actual gun-related homicides in the U.S. for 2002 was more like 10,000 people. Granted, that is still a higher per-capita rate, but if you're going to use statistics to buffer your argument, then please use the correct ones. I would also counter that the U.S. has a much different demographic than the U.K., and there are many more crimes commited with guns as a result of gang violence in the U.S. than in the U.K. One final note, it is interesting to see that in the U.K., where guns are banned, the criminals still have access to them while law-abiding citizens are left defenseless...what makes you think the U.S. would be any different? "
Bill in Lincoln wrote on May 15, 2006 9:05 am:
" I agree with Dorothy Krist comments about the "More of the same," in regards to another GOP elected official. I just shook my head, and was bewildered when I heard the next morning that Heineman had won. I personally was wanting a fresh politician in the Governors mansion with different ideas and a different approach. We need this. The Ben Nelson/Pat Rickets ticket and the amount of money projected to be spent makes me sick! Everything is going up with costs, and my paycheck stays the same. To hear how much money they spend for a possible election just reminds me of something my Dad said to me when I was a boy. "The distribution of wealth in this country is not right." "
Lindsay wrote on May 15, 2006 9:34 am:
" Thank you Marcus for digging up those statistics. A very close friend of mine is a Brit living near Newcastle, and he's been quite curious about the CCW here in Nebraska. I've even shown him this Letters to the Editors page and he was quite taken aback at how the UK statistics have been twisted around...he doesn't even know a single person who owns a gun, much less heard of any gun related deaths in ages. I feel quite safe walking around London to tell the truth...much safer than I've felt in many American cities. "
nra = evil wrote on May 15, 2006 9:43 am:
" I totally agree Marcus. Thanks for clearing up those bogus statistics. I must warn you though, you're about to get blasted on this message board by all of the angry, gun-crazed individuals who think that they have the unalienable right to perform the duties of our city's plolice department. Brace yourself. "
Lindsay wrote on May 15, 2006 10:20 am:
" Chris - You are wrong. British citizens are allowed weapons, but their standards are much stricter than ours, and as a result very few people own guns. The few people that do are usually farmers who own hunting rifles. But there seems to be few people complaining that their "rights" have been taken away either...actually you'll find most Brits are appalled at the availability of guns in the US (and yes, I do have many British friends and I can attest for my statements!) "
AJ wrote on May 15, 2006 10:56 am:
" Mr. Martinez, Thank you for expressing what I am sure is the common feeling of all legal immigrants in the United States. I have no trouble with immigration and do not stand for racism and prejudice, but have difficulty understanding why a group of illegal immigrants believe that they can enter the U.S. and demand citizenship. It is shameful that these individuals beleive that they are not criminals. They entered the U.S. illegally, which was a criminal act. Their children missed school to attend these protests, who do they think is paying for their children's education? Best wishes to you and your family! "
ET wrote on May 15, 2006 11:11 am:
" Well said, Francisco. You have done things the way things ought to be done. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having your traditions inside and amongst your family and friends. It doesn't matter what race or creed you are - everyone has family tradition. But as you also said, families must have common denominator with other families to stand together in the name of their country - and share the common traditions as well - flying the same flag, being patriotic, singing the national anthem together, speaking the common language, and serving the country in times of war, along with being productive, well-mannered citizens. Now, we can't get that out of everyone obviously, and there are plenty of white folk who are lazy, apathetic losers who couldn't care less about the USA. And you are definately right to say that the immigrants from the South have severely damaged their cause with their rallies and protests. If they had been doing things the way you had done it, there would have been no problems at all. Along with fining the companies that hire illegal immigrants, we just need to encourage people to do things the right way. It can be done and it's better for everyone in the end. "
P wrote on May 15, 2006 12:04 pm:
" Well said Francisco, I'm happy you and your family are here and part of this wonderful country! "
GMP wrote on May 15, 2006 12:10 pm:
" I feel anyone has the right to come to this country. But, as Mr. Martinez and his family did, it should be done legally. If an immigrant is here now, illegally, please register and become an American. And if you are going to live in America, live AS an American. Learn English, fly our flag, and follow laws. Use your national language at home, keep your traditions and teach your heritage to your family. Do not lose your identity. But if you live in America, be an American. "
Jane wrote on May 15, 2006 12:37 pm:
" God Bless Francisco R Martinez. What a great example of he and his family doing the right and legal thing. He and his familys' journey is what all Americans feel is what the Mexicans should do, I'm sure and there wouldn't be all the hub bub going on about the unlawful ways the Mexicans or any immigrant coming illegally. Your family is to be commended for being an American and obeying the law. "
Kletus wrote on May 15, 2006 1:06 pm:
" Shelly, I appreciate the phone calls and the door knocks. I think anyone running for public office should work their tails off to get elected. Phone calls and door knocking is how you reach people unless you're loaded with cash and can buy commercial TV time. The grass roots effort of calls and door to doors is cheap, it's get the message out for the candidate, and gives you face time to ask questions (unless it's a recorded message of course). You don't like it? My guess is you probably don't vote either. Most of the politicians have their phone numbers posted on their literature. Why not give them a call? Start up your own protest phone bank and see what it's like to make a hundred calls in one hour. And I hope you enjoy it when you get someone like yourself that answers. I talked to plenty of people like you this past election while volunteering. Not sure who pee'd in your Wheaties, but you need to get over it. "
Michele wrote on May 15, 2006 3:28 pm:
" Thank you Francisco Martinez! You said it! Illegals should not come to this counrty and protest. If they don't like it here, they can go back home!! This is America only! "
Richard wrote on May 15, 2006 11:18 pm:
" To Marcus and the others who think the Brits have such an enlightened approach to firearms ownership: You might want to do a bit of research about the early days of WW2. I was born in 1946 and quite a few WW2 veterans in our small community married women they had met in Europe while serving overseas. I remember a comment one of those wives made at a community "Turkey Shoot" one week end when I was probably 8 or 9 years old. There were probably over a hundred men & boys competing in the turkey shoot that day and the weapons ranged from single shot .22 rifles to some of the service weapons returning vets had brought back from Europe & the Pacific. The shooters that day ranged in age from 8 (I was probably the youngest) to over 80. After the competition most of the shooters laid their weapons on a table while everyone got their hot dogs, baked beans and potato salad. The Mother of one of my classmates was standing at the table looking at all the guns. She asked me if one of the guns on the table was mine. I was proud to show her my single shot Stevens .22. She couldn't believe how many of her neighbors owned guns. She then told a couple of us about how the Brits were begging civilians to give the armed forces their own weapons so they could train for the expected invasion of Hitler's soldiers. Talk about short memories. Some people just don't get it. "
Lindsay wrote on May 19, 2006 7:14 am:
" Richard: Hitler never invaded Britain by land. "
CS wrote on May 19, 2006 10:55 am:
" Thats not the point, Lindsay. He could have but felt that bombing it into submission would free him from having another land based front to occupy. "
Allen T. wrote on May 19, 2006 11:40 am:
" Lindsey: Richard never said that Hilter invaded Britain by land...but good job, I like that kind of argument. I'll try some out. Richard: Hitler never invaded America! Hilter could not "slam-dunk" as you contend and Hilter never sang on American Idol either...that's just a myth perpetrated by the crazy, right-wing American Idol lobby. All your points are therefore wrong. "
Lindsay wrote on May 19, 2006 7:01 pm:
" I was joking...but I was wrong. Hitler never was able to invade Britain at all. Thanks for the back up Allen :-) "
JBD wrote on May 23, 2006 12:06 am:
" What some people fail to realize is that the numbers generated by the CDC represent all of the deaths by firearm. That includes those killed by Peace Officers in the line of duty that were protecting themselves, other officers or the general public. It also includes those killed by citizens in defense of themselves and family from rape, robbery home invasion and violation of a protection order. It includes those that killed themselves (suicide) that would have done so even if a firearm was not available. Just removing those killed by peace officers in the line of duty reduces that 30,000+ number cigificantly. "

Ads by Yahoo!