Letters, 9/08: '90s 'glory days' a facade
I could not go another minute without responding to Anita Crouse’s assertion (letter, Sept. 3) that if John McCain is elected we will be at war “for years and years,” and just because John McCain comes from a military family “he basically sees the military side of this world.” I can’t make up my mind whether I’m more enraged as a John McCain supporter or as a 20-year veteran of the U.S. Army with three combat tours.
Let me make something perfectly clear: No one despises war more than the veterans who have fought in one. No one. If you think there are soldiers running around with joy upon receiving orders to deploy, I’d say you’ve been watching too many movies. A soldier who hasn’t deployed yet might do that, but once he’s in the back of that C-130 transport winging his way into the combat zone for the first time with his stomach knotted up and beads of sweat running down his forehead, all that machismo nonsense disappears. Indeed, he’s a changed man when he gets back in that C-130 a year later, his tour complete.
A veteran knows what it’s like to lose friends in combat; the guy you had lunch with an hour ago perhaps. A veteran knows what it’s like to stand over the body of an enemy who only seconds ago was alive and well, and doing his best to kill you. Barack Obama doesn’t know what that’s like, does he?
Whoever gets elected in November is going to have to spend billions of dollars rebuilding our military. Or perhaps you pine for the good ol’ days of the ’90s, with the “great” economy and “balanced” budget. Those of us in the military watched as our shrinking paychecks bought less and less, and there was no money for fuel, ammunition and parts for my tanks. Body bags were filled in 2003 because the leaders in the Army were not trained properly during your glory days of the ’90s.
In closing, the brutality of war is best pondered by those who have never experienced it, because they can do it safely, from a distance, and don’t have to worry about the demons who come in the darkness of their dreams.
Kevin Gleason, Lincoln
Cast vote for third-party
On Tuesday, Nov. 4, we as American citizens will go to the polls and cast our votes for who we believe will best represent us in Washington.
Everybody is seeking change.
And yet, for all this talk of change, most of you reading this letter are going to do the exact same thing you have done in every other election you have voted in — vote for a Republican or a Democrat.
Isn’t it strange, though, that when you look at all the incompetence, wasteful spending and lack of real leadership that continues to ooze out of Washington, there is a common thread that is woven in all these problems we face today: Democrats and Republicans.
You want real change this November? Don’t waste your vote on a Republican or a Democrat. Get behind a third-party candidate and really make your voice heard. Let these blowhards know that we are through wasting our votes on their tired, pathetic games and we are not going to take it anymore.
There are those who say such a vote would be a wasted vote.
Based on the historical track records of the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans we have to choose from, I would argue that continuing to vote for either party is the real waste.
Michael J. Carnes, Omaha
Check Hickman case facts
The Journal Star has not printed all the facts about the Peter Rabbit case, has decided to poke fun at a governmental entity, and chose to quote an online story comment referring to a community that does 80 percent of its business and work in your city as hicks. The issues that confront this community are important, and we as council members have taken an oath to uphold the laws that are passed by this city.
The last editorial (Aug. 28) did not get all the facts correct. We have had to remove several animals from the city since 1988 when ordinance 602-2 was approved. Ninety percent of the e-mails received by the city of Hickman were unsigned because people were too cowardly to put their name on an issue that did not affect them. If you are truly interested in fair play, then do your research and show your respect to communities that support your city.
There are two sides to every issue. We as a council have worked on this issue for 18 months and tried to come up with a solution that would be fair for all residents of this city. A compromise could not be reached by the Scotts and the city. Therefore the 1988 ordinance stands as passed … again.
Webster states that livestock are animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; farm animals kept for use and profit. Our ordinance reads that no livestock shall be kept in the city limits.
Richard Harms,
Hickman City Council member
Enhancement needed
Historical and practically speaking, should we enhance Pershing Auditorium to help halt deterioration of the near-downtown neighborhood? If the Governor’s Mansion has been restored (nearly the same age), Pershing might also be, with parking expanded to the east. Homes in the area of historic interest need neighborhood enhancement to survive.
Nancy Russell, Lincoln
Age won’t help drunk driving
In regard to those wanting a lower drinking age (LJS, Aug. 20): “I’m old enough to die for my country but not old enough to drink a beer” seems to be the most common reason given for wanting to lower the drinking age to 18 years old.
I have a few problems with 18 being the desired new drinking age. I’m a 23-year-old college student, and up until this past year I was never affected personally with the negatives of drinking. One of my close friends died in a drunken driving accident. He was the driver; he died at the age of 24.
Personally, I have never driven under the influence of alcohol, but the loss of my friend has caused me to re-evaluate whether other “adults” do or not. If adults are having issues controlling their consumption, what makes our government think that 18-year-olds will be responsible enough to control their consumption? If the drinking age is going to be lowered, why not change it to 19? Almost all 19-year-olds are out of high school, which will minimize the access to underage consumers, and it offers a slight compromise to those who serve in the military. Of course, it won’t help the problem of driving under the influence, but hopefully by the time this law would pass, the youth would have the responsibility to make better choices than those before them.
Snera Riley, Lincoln
Who is the real hypocrite?
I have two questions for Bert Hrnicek (“Worst of Hypocrites,” letter, Sept. 2). First, do you use John McCain’s middle name when you refer to him? If not, then what, exactly, is your purpose in including Barack Obama’s middle name in your reference to him? Surely you are above the scare-mongering that highlighting Obama’s Muslim middle name would imply.
Secondly, and I ask this also of others seeking to end legal abortion, how many adopted children do you have? (Remember adoption? It was once touted as the alternative to abortion.) If your answer is “None,” then who is the real hypocrite here?
Doug Dexter, Davey
Gays can raise kids, too
In regard to the recent article “Kids more an option for more gay couples,” (LJS, Aug. 18): Morally, scientifically and socially, there are no logical reasons for gay couples to not raise children if they’re able to satisfy those children’s needs.
According to the American Psychology Association, a homosexual couple can raise a kid as well as a heterosexual one. A gay couple may affect a boy’s sexual orientation as much as a straight couple. Self-reasoning will let the boy/girl see that there are heterosexual parents that succeed or fail while raising kids, and homosexual parents may succeed or fail, too. Children at state centers or orphanages are sometimes abused mentally, physically and even sexually. I’m not saying that these children must be given to gay couples, but it should be a possibility for a nicer environment and a loving family.
Most people believe that children of gay parents might become gay as well; this isn’t true at all and doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying that if a kid has a nerdy parent, the kid is going to be nerdy as well. Having gay parents doesn’t make any child gay. Sexual orientation is “wired” into our system. A kid does not become gay by watching other people be gay.
Overall, there’s no reason to say no and deny a gay couple a chance to satisfy a kid’s needs and let him or her enjoy a meaningful life.
Karen Azparrent, Lincoln
Let me make something perfectly clear: No one despises war more than the veterans who have fought in one. No one. If you think there are soldiers running around with joy upon receiving orders to deploy, I’d say you’ve been watching too many movies. A soldier who hasn’t deployed yet might do that, but once he’s in the back of that C-130 transport winging his way into the combat zone for the first time with his stomach knotted up and beads of sweat running down his forehead, all that machismo nonsense disappears. Indeed, he’s a changed man when he gets back in that C-130 a year later, his tour complete.
A veteran knows what it’s like to lose friends in combat; the guy you had lunch with an hour ago perhaps. A veteran knows what it’s like to stand over the body of an enemy who only seconds ago was alive and well, and doing his best to kill you. Barack Obama doesn’t know what that’s like, does he?
Whoever gets elected in November is going to have to spend billions of dollars rebuilding our military. Or perhaps you pine for the good ol’ days of the ’90s, with the “great” economy and “balanced” budget. Those of us in the military watched as our shrinking paychecks bought less and less, and there was no money for fuel, ammunition and parts for my tanks. Body bags were filled in 2003 because the leaders in the Army were not trained properly during your glory days of the ’90s.
In closing, the brutality of war is best pondered by those who have never experienced it, because they can do it safely, from a distance, and don’t have to worry about the demons who come in the darkness of their dreams.
Kevin Gleason, Lincoln
Cast vote for third-party
On Tuesday, Nov. 4, we as American citizens will go to the polls and cast our votes for who we believe will best represent us in Washington.
Everybody is seeking change.
And yet, for all this talk of change, most of you reading this letter are going to do the exact same thing you have done in every other election you have voted in — vote for a Republican or a Democrat.
Isn’t it strange, though, that when you look at all the incompetence, wasteful spending and lack of real leadership that continues to ooze out of Washington, there is a common thread that is woven in all these problems we face today: Democrats and Republicans.
You want real change this November? Don’t waste your vote on a Republican or a Democrat. Get behind a third-party candidate and really make your voice heard. Let these blowhards know that we are through wasting our votes on their tired, pathetic games and we are not going to take it anymore.
There are those who say such a vote would be a wasted vote.
Based on the historical track records of the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans we have to choose from, I would argue that continuing to vote for either party is the real waste.
Michael J. Carnes, Omaha
Check Hickman case facts
The Journal Star has not printed all the facts about the Peter Rabbit case, has decided to poke fun at a governmental entity, and chose to quote an online story comment referring to a community that does 80 percent of its business and work in your city as hicks. The issues that confront this community are important, and we as council members have taken an oath to uphold the laws that are passed by this city.
The last editorial (Aug. 28) did not get all the facts correct. We have had to remove several animals from the city since 1988 when ordinance 602-2 was approved. Ninety percent of the e-mails received by the city of Hickman were unsigned because people were too cowardly to put their name on an issue that did not affect them. If you are truly interested in fair play, then do your research and show your respect to communities that support your city.
There are two sides to every issue. We as a council have worked on this issue for 18 months and tried to come up with a solution that would be fair for all residents of this city. A compromise could not be reached by the Scotts and the city. Therefore the 1988 ordinance stands as passed … again.
Webster states that livestock are animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; farm animals kept for use and profit. Our ordinance reads that no livestock shall be kept in the city limits.
Richard Harms,
Hickman City Council member
Enhancement needed
Historical and practically speaking, should we enhance Pershing Auditorium to help halt deterioration of the near-downtown neighborhood? If the Governor’s Mansion has been restored (nearly the same age), Pershing might also be, with parking expanded to the east. Homes in the area of historic interest need neighborhood enhancement to survive.
Nancy Russell, Lincoln
Age won’t help drunk driving
In regard to those wanting a lower drinking age (LJS, Aug. 20): “I’m old enough to die for my country but not old enough to drink a beer” seems to be the most common reason given for wanting to lower the drinking age to 18 years old.
I have a few problems with 18 being the desired new drinking age. I’m a 23-year-old college student, and up until this past year I was never affected personally with the negatives of drinking. One of my close friends died in a drunken driving accident. He was the driver; he died at the age of 24.
Personally, I have never driven under the influence of alcohol, but the loss of my friend has caused me to re-evaluate whether other “adults” do or not. If adults are having issues controlling their consumption, what makes our government think that 18-year-olds will be responsible enough to control their consumption? If the drinking age is going to be lowered, why not change it to 19? Almost all 19-year-olds are out of high school, which will minimize the access to underage consumers, and it offers a slight compromise to those who serve in the military. Of course, it won’t help the problem of driving under the influence, but hopefully by the time this law would pass, the youth would have the responsibility to make better choices than those before them.
Snera Riley, Lincoln
Who is the real hypocrite?
I have two questions for Bert Hrnicek (“Worst of Hypocrites,” letter, Sept. 2). First, do you use John McCain’s middle name when you refer to him? If not, then what, exactly, is your purpose in including Barack Obama’s middle name in your reference to him? Surely you are above the scare-mongering that highlighting Obama’s Muslim middle name would imply.
Secondly, and I ask this also of others seeking to end legal abortion, how many adopted children do you have? (Remember adoption? It was once touted as the alternative to abortion.) If your answer is “None,” then who is the real hypocrite here?
Doug Dexter, Davey
Gays can raise kids, too
In regard to the recent article “Kids more an option for more gay couples,” (LJS, Aug. 18): Morally, scientifically and socially, there are no logical reasons for gay couples to not raise children if they’re able to satisfy those children’s needs.
According to the American Psychology Association, a homosexual couple can raise a kid as well as a heterosexual one. A gay couple may affect a boy’s sexual orientation as much as a straight couple. Self-reasoning will let the boy/girl see that there are heterosexual parents that succeed or fail while raising kids, and homosexual parents may succeed or fail, too. Children at state centers or orphanages are sometimes abused mentally, physically and even sexually. I’m not saying that these children must be given to gay couples, but it should be a possibility for a nicer environment and a loving family.
Most people believe that children of gay parents might become gay as well; this isn’t true at all and doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying that if a kid has a nerdy parent, the kid is going to be nerdy as well. Having gay parents doesn’t make any child gay. Sexual orientation is “wired” into our system. A kid does not become gay by watching other people be gay.
Overall, there’s no reason to say no and deny a gay couple a chance to satisfy a kid’s needs and let him or her enjoy a meaningful life.
Karen Azparrent, Lincoln
Copyright © 2002-2009 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.