Public vs. private

In regard to a Local View column ("Public versus private morality," July 8), the authors attempt to correlate several politicians' private conduct (adultery) to their public life and explain that moral failure in the private life makes a person unable to lead an honest, ethical public life.

My angst stems from what I believe are evolving value systems in our society and how we choose to translate these values. My weathered dictionary defines ethical as "in accordance with accepted principles." The meaning of immoral is stated, "contrary to established morality."

What principles are they adhering to? What is established morality? Are we deemed unethical or immoral if we don't follow the path defined by their value system? My concern is why they feel those who enter the political field stand alone from the rest of us? When I last voted, I didn't see a large red (Superman) "S" next to candidates' names.

They are human, nothing more, nothing less. Nearly 50 percent of first-time marriages end in divorce. A major reason for divorce is adulterous behavior (manifested by other root causes).

These writers' have managed to cast off their island quite a few current and future political leaders. Should we be led to feel that the adulterer is unethical or immoral and never should take on a leadership role, or must step down from one?

I feel this argument must stop. Judge the individual on his or her talents and accomplishments, then personally decide whether he or she is fit to lead.

Adultery dates back as far as biblical times and is part of human nature for some. Why rehash a human behavior that will not cease? I'd rather bring back the gallows, put the crime and its punishment behind us and move forward. Isn't it more productive for us all?

Barbara Arendt, Lincoln

There's a difference

Douglas A. Abbott and Christopher Curzon said in a Local View ("Public versus private morality") there is no difference between public and private morality. I beg to differ.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is regarded by most historians as one of our greater presidents for the decisions he took and the values he espoused during the Great Depression and World War II. He also had some kind of an affair with Lucy Mercer. FDR's public record, and the morality represented therein, is not affected by his unhappy marriage with Eleanor and his affection for Lucy.

John F. Kennedy is widely praised for his handling of the Cuban missile crisis and his determination to avoid escalation to nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Kennedy's morality on this and other matters of public policy is not at all affected by how many women he slept with, as indicated by Nebraskan Ted Sorensen in his memoirs.

George W. Bush authorized torture and other mistreatment of terror suspects in secret prisons run by the CIA, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. How we evaluate that policy, and whether cruelty was necessary for national security, has nothing to do with how we evaluate the private man - whether he was a good and faithful husband, good father, etc.

Eliot Spitzer did a lot of good as New York attorney general and governor. He also visited a prostitute. Whatever his libido drove him to do in his private life does not alter the good he did in uncovering corporate fraud and corruption.

The distinguished Christian theologian Reinhold Neihbur got it right: Public and private morality are very different. That is why, with understanding, we define an ambassador as someone sent abroad to lie for his country. Lying in the public interest is accepted as good, and being honest in dealing with unprincipled enemies is considered bad.

David P. Forsythe, Lincoln

Can Nelson explain?

On July 6, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., offered an amendment to remove existing restrictions on how the General Accounting Office can audit the Federal Reserve. Our own Sen. Ben Nelson promptly stopped the amendment from proceeding to a vote, citing Rule 16, which prohibits legislative measures being attached to appropriations bills. But the appropriations bill being discussed already has legislative measures attached that Nelson and his fellow Democratic senators put there.

There is an earmark on this bill for $200,000 for the Durham Museum in Omaha. It's the only earmark on the bill. This earmark is legislative in nature and violates the same Rule 16, but Nelson has no objection to this home-state earmark.

The amendment DeMint proposed would have required the GAO to audit the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010. The results of that audit would have provided information to the taxpaying public of exactly how much money the Fed has spent, where it spent it and what collateral it received in return. It is curious that the majority leadership in the Senate wants to prevent this information from being obtained and shared. I've discussed this topic with several people, and I have yet to find a single person who is not in favor of having these auditing restrictions removed.

Perhaps Nelson could explain this action to his constituents?

Mark Bartels, Lincoln

Health reform needed

Our system of care is in shambles. President Barack Obama campaigned on affordable health care for everyone. Now it seems the GOP and lobbyists are doing everything in their power to prevent that from happening. They know Obama will be blamed if they succeed in killing it and life goes on. Meanwhile, millions of uninsured Americans will be in the same boat.

We need to reduce the costs and guarantee every American the right to choose his or her own plan and doctor. I am on Medicare now, after several years of no insurance. Medicare is a public insurance option and is very good.

We have to ensure quality and affordable health care for all Americans. Congress must pass real reform in 2009.

I had breast cancer and, even with insurance, my out of pocket was nearly $50,000. After my Cobra was depleted, I was uninsurable because I had had cancer. The high-risk pool would have put me at a $5,000 deductible and $800 a month. This was an impossibility on a fixed income.

People have no idea how difficult it is when one doesn't have a corporate insurance policy.

I cannot believe the spin the Republicans are putting on Obama's plan. I hope to see it implemented.

Sharon Stone, Omaha