Letters, 10/10: Real reason for mess
Regarding the Oct. 5 article “How we got in this mess”: Again, the mainstream media conveniently forgets to include all of the facts.
Such as that this whole mess started in 1977 under President Carter and his Community Reinvestment Act.
Then, under President Clinton’s watch, banking loan rules and regulations were rewritten and expanded.
And the article made no mention of the 2003-04 congressional hearings in which the Democrats said there were no problems and defeated all reforms.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s the Democratic Party and groups such as ACORN that are the “why we are in this mess.”
Michael Leonard, Lincoln
Don’t restrict research
Regarding Ashley Rappana’s letter: Soon Michigan voters will consider a constitutional amendment to prevent restrictions on embryonic stem cell research because, as stated in a Detroit Free Press article Sept. 16, “Embryonic stem cell research could help hundreds of thousands of people in Michigan, save millions per year in health care costs and create jobs in the state’s growing biotech economy, according to a new study from the public policy group Michigan Prospect.”
NU would face a competitive disadvantage if its Board of Regents votes to limit its researchers to pre-August 2001 embryonic stem cell lines (as President Bush restricted federal funding), especially after either candidate for president fulfills his promise to allow federal funding for the 400 lines developed since August 2001. The election of a new regent opposed to embryonic stem cell research, Tim Clare, would shift the board’s 4-4 division to 5-3 against such research, leading to a likely limit on it. As a retired professor who received the James Lake Academic Freedom award during my tenure as a university professor, I oppose this sort of restriction on inquiry.
According to National Science Foundation figures, the University of Michigan’s $808.7 million in 2007 research expenditures ranks it fourth among public universities (fifth overall), while the University of Nebraska’s $336.5 million places it 30th among public universities (51st overall). NU has much room to improve its research picture. The top five research universities have been the top five for many years, but universities seeking to improve must avoid unduly restricting the science allowed in their labs.
A much more apt comparison for NU is with the University of Iowa’s $363 million, ranking it 46th overall in 2007 research expenditures. Iowa lost many scientists following its 2002 statutory restriction on stem cell research, leading to the repeal of the restriction in 2007. Nebraska should learn from Iowa’s mistakes and elect regents who are fully committed to academic freedom.
Paul A. Olson, Kate Foster, Professor of English, retired
Close prairie road
I support the request to preserve and enhance Spring Creek Prairie by closing the dirt road that separates the two parts of this wonderful natural resource. Roads are real barriers to wildlife.
Spring Creek Prairie is a wonderful place and will be made more wonderful by removing this disturbance. We will still have access without this road, and we will have the unimpeded habitat that wildlife needs to survive.
Nature will be thankful. Future residents of the county will be thankful. I will be thankful.
Robert Boyce, Lincoln
Opponent misleading
My opponent questioned my attendance record at Norris Public Power District meetings. He has his facts wrong, and his implications are even more deceptive.
As I write, I am attending a three-day conference on the management of hydro plants and river basins in the face of many possible climate change scenarios, followed by a daylong meeting of utility representatives. I regret that this commitment, while representing NPPD, precludes participation at Columbus this month. This meeting is in addition to two days of meetings with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in Omaha last week.
Serving on the NPPD board is about a lot more than just attending meetings, though of course it is important to be present and participate. His letter is an attempt to confuse and distract voters from the fact that if you live in Lincoln, he doesn’t want anyone to represent you on the NPPD board.
Many utility managers are promoting legislation to remove Lincoln voters’ representation on the NPPD board. At a time when NPPD is contemplating adding more coal-burning capacity at Sheldon Station, they believe Lincoln residents should not have a voice. My opponent was one of those small retail managers for 30 years. In the primary voter guide, he shows his true loyalty in his promise to be a strong advocate for Norris Public Power District.
At the end of the day, my opponent’s attacks are designed to distract voters from the real issues in this race and the differences between us: 1) I support vigorous investment in renewable energy like wind and solar, and he does not, and 2) I support protecting Lincoln voters’ right to representation on the NPPD board, and he doesn’t.
Mary A. Harding, board of directors, NPPD Subdistrict 2
Such as that this whole mess started in 1977 under President Carter and his Community Reinvestment Act.
Then, under President Clinton’s watch, banking loan rules and regulations were rewritten and expanded.
And the article made no mention of the 2003-04 congressional hearings in which the Democrats said there were no problems and defeated all reforms.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s the Democratic Party and groups such as ACORN that are the “why we are in this mess.”
Michael Leonard, Lincoln
Don’t restrict research
Regarding Ashley Rappana’s letter: Soon Michigan voters will consider a constitutional amendment to prevent restrictions on embryonic stem cell research because, as stated in a Detroit Free Press article Sept. 16, “Embryonic stem cell research could help hundreds of thousands of people in Michigan, save millions per year in health care costs and create jobs in the state’s growing biotech economy, according to a new study from the public policy group Michigan Prospect.”
NU would face a competitive disadvantage if its Board of Regents votes to limit its researchers to pre-August 2001 embryonic stem cell lines (as President Bush restricted federal funding), especially after either candidate for president fulfills his promise to allow federal funding for the 400 lines developed since August 2001. The election of a new regent opposed to embryonic stem cell research, Tim Clare, would shift the board’s 4-4 division to 5-3 against such research, leading to a likely limit on it. As a retired professor who received the James Lake Academic Freedom award during my tenure as a university professor, I oppose this sort of restriction on inquiry.
According to National Science Foundation figures, the University of Michigan’s $808.7 million in 2007 research expenditures ranks it fourth among public universities (fifth overall), while the University of Nebraska’s $336.5 million places it 30th among public universities (51st overall). NU has much room to improve its research picture. The top five research universities have been the top five for many years, but universities seeking to improve must avoid unduly restricting the science allowed in their labs.
A much more apt comparison for NU is with the University of Iowa’s $363 million, ranking it 46th overall in 2007 research expenditures. Iowa lost many scientists following its 2002 statutory restriction on stem cell research, leading to the repeal of the restriction in 2007. Nebraska should learn from Iowa’s mistakes and elect regents who are fully committed to academic freedom.
Paul A. Olson, Kate Foster, Professor of English, retired
Close prairie road
I support the request to preserve and enhance Spring Creek Prairie by closing the dirt road that separates the two parts of this wonderful natural resource. Roads are real barriers to wildlife.
Spring Creek Prairie is a wonderful place and will be made more wonderful by removing this disturbance. We will still have access without this road, and we will have the unimpeded habitat that wildlife needs to survive.
Nature will be thankful. Future residents of the county will be thankful. I will be thankful.
Robert Boyce, Lincoln
Opponent misleading
My opponent questioned my attendance record at Norris Public Power District meetings. He has his facts wrong, and his implications are even more deceptive.
As I write, I am attending a three-day conference on the management of hydro plants and river basins in the face of many possible climate change scenarios, followed by a daylong meeting of utility representatives. I regret that this commitment, while representing NPPD, precludes participation at Columbus this month. This meeting is in addition to two days of meetings with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in Omaha last week.
Serving on the NPPD board is about a lot more than just attending meetings, though of course it is important to be present and participate. His letter is an attempt to confuse and distract voters from the fact that if you live in Lincoln, he doesn’t want anyone to represent you on the NPPD board.
Many utility managers are promoting legislation to remove Lincoln voters’ representation on the NPPD board. At a time when NPPD is contemplating adding more coal-burning capacity at Sheldon Station, they believe Lincoln residents should not have a voice. My opponent was one of those small retail managers for 30 years. In the primary voter guide, he shows his true loyalty in his promise to be a strong advocate for Norris Public Power District.
At the end of the day, my opponent’s attacks are designed to distract voters from the real issues in this race and the differences between us: 1) I support vigorous investment in renewable energy like wind and solar, and he does not, and 2) I support protecting Lincoln voters’ right to representation on the NPPD board, and he doesn’t.
Mary A. Harding, board of directors, NPPD Subdistrict 2
Copyright © 2002-2009 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.