Now
Overcast
31°
High
32°
Low
21°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 8/27: Defending democracy

Comments 46 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 - 12:21:14 am CDT

The tiny democracy of Georgia has been seized by a Russian military invasion. It has been reported that local villages of this fledgling country have been brutalized at the hands of Russian soldiers, as well as reports of ethnic cleansing, mocking the nations that gathered to celebrate the Olympic Games.

By all credible accounts, Georgia has done little to invite this violence. One of the revolving reasons given for disregarding international pressure and invading Iraq was to sow the seeds of democracy. But as an existing democratic nation is fighting for its life against impossible odds, all the last superpower can do is offer harsh words and request permission to send food.

When Zimbabwe’s brutal ruling party forced out any opposition in the general election, these thugs actually killed their own citizens who did not vote; still America did not intervene. What possible reason could be given for continuing the occupation of Iraq when democracies suffer atrocities at every turn, tanks march on the helpless, and we do not defend the oppressed?

The foreign policy of this administration has paralyzed our country and bled us of the will and resources to lead the free world. All the things we said we would not do regarding North Korea and Iran this administration has now reversed or surrendered. North Korea got the supplies we had withheld, Iran is conducting missile tests, and Russia states the installation of U.S. missiles in Poland will provoke another response. We cannot act alone; neither can we afford another president with a seven-year learning curve and counting. We will continue to reap the harvest sown by this incompetent administration for years to come. Our democracy is still alive; let’s vote for a real change.

Steven D. Burbach, Lincoln

Let drivers decide

State Sen. John Harms is pushing for the seat belt law to be a primary violation (LJS, Aug. 18). He says it’s a good idea because it saves lives. I agree, that it does save lives, but don’t you think that should be your choice? Everyone knows there’s a risk for not wearing your seat belt: You could die or be thrown from the vehicle. My thought is that it’s my choice. It’s not a choice that affects anyone else’s safety but my own. Plus, if it’s my time to go home, there’s no seat belt in the world that can save me.

Now, to make sure I’m not misunderstood, I’m not talking about children and car seats. I’m talking about adults, who are capable of making choices for themselves.

By passing this law. Nebraska could get $7.4 million in federal highway funding, but it has to be passed by Sept. 30, 2009, or the money goes away. It makes me wonder if the law is really being pushed for cash and not totally for safety reasons.

Passing laws that let the government make decisions on how we should live our lives is a scary thing.

Sara Graham, Kearney

Political censorship

The coverage of the Senate candidates’ debate at the State Fair (LJS, Aug. 24) was a disservice to Nebraskans. After stating that three candidates participated (Mike Johanns, Scott Kleeb and Steve Larrick), none of Larrick’s responses to the various issues debated were presented to readers. This is political censorship.

Does the Journal Star assume that because there is little likelihood the Green Party candidate will win that it is not worth wasting prime newspaper space in presenting his views? I could not disagree more with this viewpoint.

Americans generally are very dissatisfied with the performance of both major political parties on the economic, social and foreign policy issues facing our nation. Third-party candidates can serve a role by putting forth alternative policies for the electorate to consider and for the major party candidates to comment on. Such airing of alternatives may result in improving the policies of the major parties. Unfortunately, the Journal Star’s coverage has failed to allow this to happen.

Anthony F. Starace, 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  
goldwater wrote on August 27, 2008 3:07 am:
" Dear Mr. Burbach, Yes, what is happening in Georgia is wrong. It is reminiscence of when Stalin sealed it off and starved them out. Stalin was a native of Georgia. Stalin wasn’t stalling (who wrote that song?). Zimbabwe was better off when it was controlled by a racist white government. Mugabe proved that. You seem to call for the US to be the world’s policeman, which we have tried in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has bankrupted our country and the rest of the world takes a dim view. You do make one good point. It is time for change. That change won’t come from choosing between the Repugnoctrats and their corporate masters. Bob Barr is the candidate that offers change. At home and abroad, if you want change, here’s the only choice. Have the courage and make it. "

 Laurie wrote on August 27, 2008 5:26 am:
" Ms. Graham, of course the law is being "pushed for cash". What is wrong with that? What is so terrible about wearing a seatbelt that you can't even manage to do it for the public good? Perhaps the state should just increase everyone's taxes to pay for highway maintenance. Sure, seatbelts are a little uncomfortable around the ol' spare tire, aren't they, and most accident victims feel little compunction about sucking up public resources after the insurance runs out, but I'm willing to bet that every victim who didn't wear a seatbelt is kicking themselves now for "making that choice". Here's a choice for you- don't wear a seatbelt and pay the fine when you get a ticket. What's scary is people who don't even think they owe the rest of society just a little cooperation in making things work. "

 Cole wrote on August 27, 2008 6:28 am:
" Anthony - I listened to the entire debate. LJS is probably interested in printing a candidates comments and answers to the questions that were given and discussed. As Larrick's responses and comments had almost nothing to do with the questions asked, what was LJS to do?

I listened with interest as he responded to the first question and was immediately struck by his incompetence. I laughed out loud at one point as he awkwardly steered each and every issue back to wind energy. I was waiting for a question on capital punishment just to see him call to bring the electric chair back so we could hook it up to a turbine.

Don't get me wrong - viable, intelligent candidates need a place at the table regardless of party affiliation, but the real disservice here is that we had to listen to Larrick's almost comic responses just when things were getting interesting with the other two. "

 to sara wrote on August 27, 2008 6:36 am:
" if you want to drive without a seat belt thats fine but you should pay higher insurance then. since your medical bills when thrown from your car will be alot more than the minor cuts i would get since i wear my belt. it's only fair that you pay more because your a higher risk and i pay less. more power to you. "

 Berten Earnest wrote on August 27, 2008 7:24 am:
" If any of these atrocities show anything, it shows the incompetence and hypocrisy of the United Nations. Where was the UN in preventing these conflicts? I thought we should be seeking a "multilateral" approach to resolving these problems? While the administration has not done the best job and keeping all international threats in check, the majority of the fault cannot be laid on them. It's these situations that should force the U.S. to ask, "Why are we involved in such an ineffective organization that actively works against our interests and only validates dictators and works against human rights." "

 decisions wrote on August 27, 2008 7:35 am:
" Many years ago, the voters of this state VOTED to get rid of the seatbelt law completely. Then, our legislature voted to bring it back AGAINST the will of the voters. It was for the same reason - money.

While I certainly agree with wearing seatbelts, and teaching our children what will happen if they don't (including how and why seatbelts work,) I don't agree with a law requiring them to be a primary offense. There are instances, albiet few, where not wearing a seatbelt has helped people "get thrown" from their vehicle and it may have actually worked for the better. Each person needs the right to say "today is my day to work against the odds" and not be tied down by the laws.

Making this a primary offense would take away that right. In addition, police could stop "anyone at any time" regardless of other violations and say they "didn't see the seatbelt" - giving our police too much ability to override our personal rights. "

 SB wrote on August 27, 2008 7:46 am:
" I think you should have to wear your seatbelt so public money is not used to pay for your inadequate health insurance coverage. On top of this I think you and all your passengers should be required by law to wear a helmet while driving your car as another precautionary step so you are not a drain on society after your accident. After all you are driving a one ton piece of steel 75 miles per hour with the potential to kill yourself, other drivers, motorcyclists, bicyclists, passengers, and pedestrians. "

 JMK wrote on August 27, 2008 7:46 am:
" And while your at it, why should we be limited on how fast we drive, and what if I choose to drive on the oposite side of the street? I should be able to do that if I choose.. It should be my choice. And why can't I carry any gun I want?It should be my choice, shouldn't it? And why can't I do any drugs legally? Again it should be my choice according to Sara. Why let the government limit me? "

 stignob wrote on August 27, 2008 7:52 am:
" Seems Laurie has it all wrong. People wear seat belts for themselves, NOT for the public good. It's about CHOICE and the FREEDOM that goes with it. How much will it take to sell our freedom. Yes, we can think for ourselves instead mindless robots driving around for the "public good". "

 John wrote on August 27, 2008 7:57 am:
" Steven: If only it was easy to be the worlds policeman. Pyongyang got it's supplies only after they had agreed to halt their nuke program - they are back at it because we won't delist them from the state sponsors of terrorism list. The US won't delist them because they haven't agreed to a verification program to make sure they aren't producing any more nukes. Iran won't be stopped with words...it's just that simple. The Israelis understand this and at cerain levels we do too. Russia is it's own animal altogether. They have a KGB man at the helm who wants nothing less than world domination, very scary cat. Then we have China... The situation in Darfur... It's a big bad world that the Jr. Senator from IL frankly doesn't understand all that well yet. Just 3 years ago on a trip to the former Soviet Union while traveling with former Senator Lugar, Obama stated, "I very much feel like the novice and pupil." Is 3 years as a US Senator, with under 150 days in those 3 years of the Senate actually in session enough to deal with the above listed problems? I would argue it isn't. "

 Realist wrote on August 27, 2008 8:15 am:
" You're darn right it's being push for cash. But it's also for your own safety. It's a win/win situation. There's simply no reason you can't wear your seatbelt. Quit complaining. "

 Chip wrote on August 27, 2008 8:25 am:
" I think we should be able to drive our cars on the sidewalk if we choose. (Just kidding). Arguing against seat belts in the 21st century is silly. Hopefully most of us have evolved far enough to understand the benefit of seat belts and to care enough about the common good to simply wear them.

You know, if more people were less selfish we wouldn't have so many laws. Can we reach a social contract with each other where we do something just because it is the right thing to do? We have to make laws for those people in society who think, "I can do what I want. Leave me alone." Sounds like a teenager on the Maury Povich show. "

 Darwin wrote on August 27, 2008 8:25 am:
" I agree. Helmet laws and seat belt laws are silly. If you want to die in a crash, go for it. And all we would need is one very simple bit of legislation: An insurance company can not pay for any injury or condition that could have been reasonably prevented.

This rule would also solve the problem of outrageously high insurance premiums. If you eat until you are so huge you cant move, insurance will not pay to fix you. If you are 'thrown clear' in a crash, insurance doesnt pay for it. If you smoke you dont get free money to pay for having your lungs removed.

Personal choices that only effect the individual making them should not be legislated. And, personal injuries that come from these freedoms should not be paid for by the public. "

 Sean wrote on August 27, 2008 8:25 am:
" I'm all for people choosing whether they should wear their seat belts or not. I consider it part of the natural selection process of evolution. If you are not smart enough to strap in than your non-survival can be nothing but an improvement to the gene pool. I'm getting pretty tired of the Nanny State thing. "

 CS wrote on August 27, 2008 8:31 am:
" Since people with insurance don't set the medical coverages, and people that carry car insurance are likely to have medical so why lump them in with your 'sucking at the public teat' group? We don't have any say in what the insurance covers, so how why shouldn't we seek out public recourse if there is a difference? We do what we are supposed to do by having insurance, yet here you come still making it out like it's OUR fault that overall rates are high because of uninsured people.IN any case, since everyone's tax money pays for the 'public resources' you talk about, who are you REALLY upset with for using these 'public resources'? "

 CS wrote on August 27, 2008 8:34 am:
" How did some of you people ever survive before the government came along to pass a rule on everything? I can't wait until someone thinks up forced, age based euthanasia. Sure it SHOULD be a choice for those that want it, but hey, lets go one step further because insulated from reality bureaucrats ALWAYS know better... "

 mitchy_v wrote on August 27, 2008 8:37 am:
" And while your at it, lets let the government choose what we eat, what we drink, what we watch on tv. Let's adjust the governors on our vehicles so they can't exceed 75, that is the speed limit. Seatbelts have saved lives, but being thown from a vechile has also proven to have saved peoples lives from time to time too. "

 Well....... wrote on August 27, 2008 9:15 am:
" I don't know much about Larrick but I do know that I WANT that thousand dollar tax cut that Barack will put in my pocket every year IF we send Kleeb in to help get the legislation passed. So its simple.............no Barack, no Kleeb, NO THOUSAND DOLLARS! Get it? "

 actually wrote on August 27, 2008 10:12 am:
" Laurie what is scary is people like you have no problem giving your rights up. Will you be ok when we have to give up all fast food? It is already happening in California so I hope you like the gov't telling you everything you can and can't do. Our founding fathers would be so proud of us.(sarcasm) "

 I love all wrote on August 27, 2008 10:15 am:
" the people who think a seatbelt is the safest thing ever. Do some research people, seatbelts cause a lot more injuries than one would think. I actually have a cousin who died because of the seatbelt, so do lay this guilt trip on everyone. And Sara I agree 100%! "

 Oh please... wrote on August 27, 2008 10:18 am:
" JMK your comparisons are pathetic at best. I think it is hillarious you would make those when in fact it has never been proven and never will be proven that not wearing a seatbelt only affects the person not wearing one and nobody else. Unlike every instance you gave. Nice try though. You might be ok with giving up your rights because you need someone to tell you what to do but I am not. "

 We all know... wrote on August 27, 2008 10:23 am:
" that seatbelts save lives. But do we need to be policed on this? NO. We are smart and most people wear their seatbelst. So why do we need to feel someone must tell us this? Make zero sense. If anything this insults my intelligence. "

 Ripper wrote on August 27, 2008 10:34 am:
" If you think you will get a $1000 check each year if Obama gets elected then I have a bridge I would like you to come look at-it is for sale and I will guarantee that each and every year you own it will pay you $10,000-all you have to do is elect me as your president-so would you rather have $1000 or $10,000-your chance of getting either is zero but if it makes you feel better, I will increase my offer to $20,000. All it costs you is your vote and the agreement that I get elected. There is not a thing in the Democratic platform that will be enacted as promised. The same is true of the soon to be finished Republican Platform. I have kept track of both the platforms and promises made by the candidates since JFK was elected. Since LBJ came into power, less than 4% of all platform items or campaign promises have been kept. Before JFK I couldn't vote so it didn't make any difference to me. So again, I will promise $30,000 if I get elected, no make that a chicken in every pot, a new car and a great paying American job, without any immigration issues to worry about, lower gas and food costs and free health care for everyone-all you have to do is elect me President. Do it, do it now!! Be greedy, elect me! "

 Use the space for real candidates wrote on August 27, 2008 10:35 am:
" Steve Larrick has about as much chance of being elected as a snowball's chance in you know where. When a candidate/party doesn't even garner 3% of the vote, they and their views are immaterial. Thank you LJS for not wasting space on a candidate who has no chance whatsoever of being elected. He knows this too, so one has to ask why is he even running? To get his name in the paper and face on tv? The majority of people for the most part have never cared one bit about green party candidates, so what is the true motivation here for his small band of supporters complaining about in the local paper? It certainly won't gain him any votes. "

 CS wrote on August 27, 2008 10:39 am:
" Ill amend that suggested provision of 'insurance won't cover you unless it's reasonably avoidable'. Charge more for premiums...oh, wait, they already do. If I pay premiums, the insurance company is obligated to cover me-that it affects your premium is not my problem-that is between you and the insurance company that passes it on to you in the name of making them money. Raise premiums on those with risks, but don't expect me to feel sorry for your premium when I already pay my own, within the confines of the rules in place. "

 Hey CS wrote on August 27, 2008 11:15 am:
" Age based euthanasia is a GREAT idea. That would solve all the Medicare and Social Security problems (and get rid of most of the politicians to boot!!). "

 Ponyboy wrote on August 27, 2008 12:11 pm:
" Laws exist to protect society from stupid people. True, most of us ARE smart enough to do the right thing, but unfortunately, some people are not. Stupid refers to people who are do not possess strong cognitive skills AND people who do not care about the needs of others.

With regard to the comment that the government would tell us what to eat, etc . . . I see where you are going with this, but don't you think that the example is a bit far-fetched? Speed limits, seat belts and helmet laws are there to protect individuals AND those who might be hit by a stupid person. Obesity, while a problem in the US affects only the individual and there is a monetary cost, from health and insurance companies, to society. Insurance companies already build in premium breaks for individuals who don't smoke, have a safe driving record and take care of their health. "

 Yes I agree wrote on August 27, 2008 12:15 pm:
" with Sara. "Passing laws that let the government make decisions on how we should live our lives is a scary thing." Think about that statement in broader sense with a couple "hot" social issues. The same people who don't want the government to make decisions on how we should live our lives want the government to make rules that literally take rights away from citizens. "

 Boonie wrote on August 27, 2008 12:24 pm:
" Sara, how would you feel if your son or daughter, mom or dad, brother or sister were killed in an accident because they refused to belt up as a matter of principle? Some principle to die for! It’s sometimes said that committing suicide is the most selfish act a person can undertake because it totally ignores the sensibilities of every person who cared. Maybe you should think of a seatbelt law as government’s concern for orphans and other survivors. "

 Sara wrote on August 27, 2008 12:39 pm:
" That's basically what all of us motorcyclists want too is a choice, wear a helmet or not. We've been fighting that for how long now? "

 osisbs wrote on August 27, 2008 12:52 pm:
" Sara, maybe the guys driving the ambulance can decide whether or not they'll make the long trip to mile marker 217 to treat your head-trauma. Or, maybe your insurance company will decide not to pay for your month-long coma care. This isn't 1775, you're not free to do as you chose. Pay your taxes, obey the rules, and if you don't like that then run for president as an anarchist. I am so tired of people from Western Nebraska thinking that you can all do as you please. It's 2008, wake up. "

 osisbs wrote on August 27, 2008 1:01 pm:
" I wish the Gov'ment would get out of my business, also. I hate that they have tests for aircraft maintenence personel. I hate that they took lead out of my gas and paint. I hate eating chicken which isn't covered in fecal matter. I hate paying wages to adults when children will work for almost nothing and they don't form unions. I hate that they arrest drunk drivers because dodging them on a Friday night is like a video game. I very much resent them not allowing me to catch 10,000 fish at Holmes lake and sell them at the Farmer's Market. I also hate that they made me go to school so that I put together complete sentences with subject and verbs which agree. Government needs to get out of my business. "

 Zoomie wrote on August 27, 2008 1:54 pm:
" John, seems to me you've got the whole thing backwards. McSame is promising more of the same as Bush, but worse! For 8yrs now, Bush has totally $crewed up the world, making it less and less safe, only confronting the "bad guys" with threats he can't back up, so they just ignore us now. McSame says he'll actually do something! Really? What? Attack Russian troops in Georgia? To be followed by a nuke strike against the US? And WW3? Yep, that'll sure show'em!!! Repuglicans seem to have totally lost the entire concept (much less the ability) to engage in diplomacy, and achieve what we want without having to kill hundreds of thousands needlessly. Obama understands this, and will do far better at keeping us all safe!
As to the seatbelt idea...let me understand this....you people are saying we should have the right to not wear helmets and seatbelts, and insurance companies should get an out with contracts that say they don't have to cover or payout if we opt to not wear helmets/seatbelts and are in accidents...even if someone else hits you and you did nothing wrong? And will this legal change also state that when you're thrown from your car (as far too many teens have been lately) because you didn't wear a seatbelt, and you break your neck but live...we the taxpayer won't have to pay your lifelong medical expenses? In fact, perhaps it should just say anytime police come on an accident in which one of the injured wasn't wearing a helmet or seatbelt, to just leave them to die in a ditch, so no one except the person who chose not to wear the seatbelt/helmet has to pay any price what so ever! Yeah, that seems like a great idea! Indeed, a 2009 Darwin Award in the making! "

 Sam wrote on August 27, 2008 2:02 pm:
" It's important to keep this whole seat belt thing in perspective. The proposed law is not about mandating seat belt use-we already have such a law on the books. This law would make seat belt nonuse a "primary enforcement" item, meaning that a cop could pull you over just because he thinks you might not be wearing a seat belt. Since the State Patrol can't use racial profiling as a reason to stop people for driving while Hispanic or driving while black, it's my guess that we'll see an inordinate number of black and Latino motorists stopped for no seat belts if this law passes. "

 MarkyMark wrote on August 27, 2008 2:27 pm:
" Ripper, you completely described the Republican party in your rant. Very accurately too. "

 so_osisbs wrote on August 27, 2008 2:39 pm:
" you would have not problem with the government tapping your phone? running your church? "

 Hey Marky Mark wrote on August 27, 2008 3:21 pm:
" Which part of Rippers rant isn't true? Dems have always promised tax cuts to the middle class to get elected. Keep getting fooled, and keep drinking Kool Aid. "

 To some.... wrote on August 27, 2008 3:23 pm:
" people (Boonie) do you know what it feels like to lose a sister because of seatbelt? I thought maybe she was the only one but I quickly found out thousands and thousands are effected in a negative way because seatbelts. Starting with death and ending with life long back pain. So don't tell me seatbelts save lives and also don't tell me it was a freak accident. "

 Where wrote on August 27, 2008 3:48 pm:
" I live , there are mountains and mountain roads with a lot of curves. One night while in the hospital for other problems they brought in accident victims. One was wearing a seat belt one was not. The one driving was not. He was in a coma for several days from being thrown out of the car. The other had deep bruises from the belt across his stomach and chest. It works and I wear one all the time now. I thought it was silly in lincoln but when you drive on roads that Can Kill you, you change. I even wearone when in lincoln. I'ts probably more unsafe to drive in than the mountains. By the way this state has a mandatory seat belt law and our car insurance is cheaper than nebraska. "

 Massive Brain Injury wrote on August 27, 2008 4:17 pm:
" Not wearing seatbelts or helmets on bikes does tend to clean up the Darwin award winners. "

 Red wrote on August 27, 2008 5:01 pm:
" Sam - your right - we already have the law on the books - it doesn't need to be a primary offense. I don't need to be told what to eat, what to wear, what time to go to bed or how to discipline my children - seems like when we didn't have our gov't telling us what to do we got along pretty well - not perfect but alot better than things are now. Our gov't needs to back out of legislating morality and intelligence - cause if they don't have it already - some law won't make it so. "

 Puh-lease wrote on August 27, 2008 5:04 pm:
" Just for a day, will the LJS stop printing comments from people who cannot enter a posting with out using bumper-sticker slogans and talking points. Wouldn't it be nice if LJS readers could actually think for themselves? "

 Laurie wrote on August 27, 2008 6:34 pm:
" Honestly, people, some of you just don't get it. Yes, the "you get money if you enact the seat-belt law" is a bribe from the federal government. Yes, we in Nebraska could sure use that money. You exchange other sacrifices of your time and comfort for money (most of us do, anyway). Those of you screaming the loudest about your "rights" are going to be the first ones to scream when that money has to come from other sources. Well, I have a right to expect state legislators to make intelligent choices in managing state funds, and not listen to every undereducated overindulgent crybaby that thinks their "rights" are being infringed upon. Grow up. "

 mitchy_v wrote on August 28, 2008 9:01 am:
" everyone has "rights" that are being infringed upon - Personal freedom vs. safety, Smokers vs. non-smokers, abortion vs. right for life. It all come down to whom ever has the most money wins. As long as someone has a person alagenda against something they don't like we will lose all
our freedoms eventually. "

 By some of your wrote on August 28, 2008 10:22 am:
" reasoning just because not wearing a seatbelt kills we should now outlaw skydiving, crab fishing, firefighting, war, eating, drinking, driving (even while wearing a seatbelt), flying, sailing and camping. All these things people die from why is the gov't not pressing to outlaw these things? Because they start small first it is seatbelt, then it is what we eat and drink then it will be how we have fun. So all you for the new seat belt law start having fun now! "

 Zoomie wrote on August 28, 2008 8:51 pm:
" Sam - currently NE law says you must wear a seatbelt, punishable by a fine if you don't. But it also says LE can't pull you over ONLY because you're not wearing a seatbelt (where are the "we don't need new laws, we just need to enfore the laws we have" crowd when you need them?). The change we're talking about would allow LE to pull you over ONLY because you aren't wearing a seatbelt. And why not? How stupid is it (and how better to give teens the lesson that laws can often be ignored) to have a law which says LE can't enforce it? "

Ads by Yahoo!