Letters, 9/30: Stolen flag means a lot

 43 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

Last week, a flag was stolen from the front of my house. I don’t think the person who stole my flag has any idea how much it means to me, nor how much I really would love to have it back.

I carried it with me while in Bosnia trying to help the people there return to as much normalcy as possible after a terrible war. That flag was in my guntruck while my team of men and I found and marked landmines and unexploded munitions. I had it with me while on foot patrols, documenting war crimes. That flag accompanied me on missions to search for war criminals.

The flag that was stolen from my home was what reminded me of the reasons why I had left my family and home, and the freedom I wanted to help these people have.

When I left for Iraq, I took that flag with me. I was gone for 16 months, and every day of those 16 months that flag was with me, on every mission. It has been blown up, shot at, and seen things that I wouldn’t wish on anyone.

If I can’t have my flag back, please take as much care of it as it has of me.

Albert K. Beute, Lincoln, Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army, Cavalry

Lost money returned

Last Saturday, I lost some money at a volleyball tournament at Norris.  The money was not nearly as important as the bank account information in the envelope.

This week, I received a notice from my bank that a lady had returned the envelope and the money to my bank for redeposit.

I would love to thank you personally. Your kindness and honesty are very much appreciated and heartwarming. Thank you.

Kelly Hedlund, Lincoln

Review poorly written

I’m a friend of Jonis Agee, whose novel, “The River Wife,” your paper gave such irresponsible treatment Sept. 23. I mention this up front by way of full disclosure.

I’m not here to defend Jonis’ book, which, as it’s going into its second printing, needs no defense. Instead, I’m writing to seek a defense of your own for printing such lazy criticism.

Nina Murray does in her review the exact sort of thing I give my students low grades for doing: reacting to a text without thoughtfully responding to it. Jonis’ book is called “overwrought” and “overblown” without Murray ever arguing where and how. She labels the novel as melodrama without providing any example of inappropriate effect, much less a discussion of what problems the use of melodrama might bring to a novel.

In short, Murray makes a ton of arguments without ever bothering to back any of them up with textual evidence. This is, to be clear, the first thing students learn how to do in a freshman composition class.

I’m ashamed to say that Murray and I have master’s degrees from the same institution, that our program seems to have produced such a sloppy scholar. But that the Journal Star sees such criticism fit to print should make you feel far more ashamed. Reviews without analysis help no one, neither the writers of novels nor those seeking which to read.

Either find a way to devote more space in your paper to the careful development of an argument, or try harder to find reviewers who can actually do their jobs.

David C. Madden, Lincoln

Talk about immoral

This letter is in response to all the rather homophobic letters the Journal Star has printed of late.

In almost all of them, I noticed a single theme. The writer claimed that homosexuality was immoral, because the Bible said so.

Let’s all be clear what immoral means. Injuring someone is immoral, because it affects someone else negatively, and intrudes upon their basic rights. Killing someone is immoral, because it affects someone else (quite) negatively. So are extortion, rape, assault and copyright infringement.

Being gay, whether it is a choice or not, is not immoral. Neither is having gay sex. That hurts no one, that infringes upon no one’s rights.

Your religion is something else entirely. If you believe that you shouldn’t work on Sundays, fine, don’t go to work on Sunday. Don’t label all Sunday workers immoral. If you believe you should never curse, fine. Don’t label anyone who does immoral. If you believe you need to go to church on Easter, fine. Don’t label those who stay home immoral.

If you believe homosexuality is a sin, fine. Don’t be homosexual. I could care less.

But you have absolutely no right to push your religious beliefs on others. They are not hurting you. Don’t force them to be exactly like you. To do so would be … immoral.

Jahan Claes, Lincoln

Children need care

President Bush’s statement that Congress and the Democrats are playing politics with our children as they reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program is extraordinarily ironic and misguided.  It is the president who is playing politics with our children.

The administration’s proposal for the reauthorization of SCHIP is wholly inadequate.  The funding is so paltry that there is a serious risk more Nebraska children would become uninsured and the 34,000 other Nebraska children who are currently uninsured would be completely left behind.

In contrast, the widely bipartisan bill approved by Congress would present Nebraska with an opportunity to offer essential health care to more low-income children.

Contrary to the president’s understanding, Congress’ SCHIP bill would not provide coverage for children in the middle class, but rather, would provide coverage to children who are already uninsured, 85 percent of whom have incomes that are lower than the current SCHIP eligibility guidelines.

SCHIP is a proven, effective, and bipartisan program that provides the state with the means to offer much needed health care to its low-income children.  Congress’ SCHIP bill would allow the state to offer health care to even more eligible children.  This opportunity is available to us now.

Our children are waiting for the health care they need.  Why is the president making them wait?

Jennifer A. Carter, Lincoln, Director, Health Care Access Program, Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest

Poor health care here

On Wednesday, President Bush made statements indicating that he would veto a bill sponsoring the State Children’s Health Insurance Program or SCHIP because the spending was too great.  Congress asked for $35 billion to bring insurance to more than 4 million more children over the next five years than are currently eligible.

In almost the same breath, he asked Congress for another $190 billion to further fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the old adage goes, if you are not outraged, then you aren’t paying attention.

SCHIP was established in the 1990s to help those just above the poverty line afford health insurance for their children.  With bankruptcies at all-time highs, and with many of those being caused by illness and lack of insurance, it seems that good policy would seek to cover everybody, beyond just children. 

The lack of health coverage in this country is astonishing! Republicans love to talk about the free market, but they ignore the fact that money that could be spent on larger houses, nicer cars and better education is often spent on overpriced health insurance, not to mention those pulling the economy down by declaring bankruptcy.

Nebraskans make on average around $34,000 a year. According to USA Today, the average family health care policy for a family hovers around $10,000 a year; you do the math.  With the amount of money we have spent on the “war,” we could have offered free universal health insurance to every man, woman and child in the United States with money left over.

What is freedom? Is it cynically spending billions on a foreign war, or is it providing for each other, as a community, the promise of health care?

Tyler R. White, Lincoln