An article that ran in a recent Journal Star asked if Nebraskans are leaving the state because of high taxes. The answer is yes. My parents lived in Nebraska for 72 years. Then, they had to decide whether to risk outliving their retirement income in Nebraska, or move to a more senior-friendly state.

They moved, and left all family and friends, to live in a state where they pay $500 in property taxes as opposed to $3,100.

As the only daughter, I will be taking a week off from work to help my father after surgery. I do it gladly, but oh, how I wish they were 10 minutes away instead of seven hours away.

Are Nebraskans leaving? Yes they are, and most are doing it quietly and without fanfare, and I miss them.

Linda Biggerstaff, Lincoln

River flows not needed

In the Aug. 20 Lincoln Journal Star, Tom Kimmell, executive director of the Irrigation Association in Falls Church, Va., referred to “the state’s obligation to keep the rivers flowing.”

The agreement on river flows on the Republican River, I thought, were a certain percentage of flows. The Platte River has never had continuous flows. Diaries kept during the migration across Nebraska on the Oregon Trail showed that some years, the water did not flow. Also, in the 1930s era of drought, the Platte was dry for months at a time.

The request for continuous Platte River flows comes from outsider government agencies and nongovernment organizations that have devised a scheme to insinuate control through what is called the Cooperative Agreement.

Right now, the Cooperative Agreement is before Nebraska’s governor. If he signs the agreement, Nebraska will be under control of outsiders.

Just recently, I learned that more water is used to produce ethanol fuel than is used to irrigate the corn crop. The solution: move the ethanol plants to New Orleans. There should be enough water for ethanol plants there.

There is another waste of water in Nebraska along the Platte River. The demand for river flows for the whooping cranes is moot because the whooping cranes use man-made ponds and other bodies of water. At the time of the Sandhill Crane migration, those cranes roost overnight in natural wetlands and man-made ponds, as well as on the Platte River. In a time of drought, crane host supporters could help farmers near the Platte River to construct shallow, temporary ponds for the cranes. The endangered fish can be placed in the borrow pits along I-80 or in man-made pits adjacent to the Platte River. Continuous river flows are not needed for crane or fish.

George P. Remmenga, Clay Center

Anti-war, not anti-military

It seems that many who favor the Iraq war have a poor understanding of the anti-war movement. First of all, the peace movement that I support is not anti-military but favors the ethical, responsible and efficient deployment of our troops into combat. The men and women who are willing to die for our country are this nation’s greatest asset and it is the responsibility of not only politicians, but all citizens to ensure that our troops not be put in harm’s way without very good reason.

So after Sept. 11, I supported military action in Afghanistan. After all, there appeared to be legitimate connections to al-Qaida and terrorists there. But when the administration presented numerous faulty rationales for invading Iraq, while the man who admitted responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks was at large more than 1,000 miles from Iraq, I was outraged.

The so-called Islamic fascism argument is completely without merit in the context of the Iraq war. Al-Qaida hated the secular government of Saddam’s Iraq, which was essentially the furthest thing from Islamic fascism in the entire Arab world. And what is ironic, there are numerous experts who believe Iraq is now closer to Islamic fascism than when ruled by Saddam. So let us be clear, if the Iraq war did not oust Islamic fascism, is it therefore a diversion from the war on terror?

So now in the fourth year of a bloody, seemingly intractable conflict, with no exit strategy, timeline or end of internecine violence in sight, the majority of Americans are finally voicing their disapproval for the war—and it’s about time.

Nate Elmer, Lincoln

Apology needed

Regarding the Cal Thomas column published Aug. 21, which was titled “Defector warns of menace posed by Islam” — I have to say that I am deeply disappointed at the quality of work you allow to be published in your newspaper. I was also saddened that at this time and age there can still be people who are “educated” and are supposed to be leading our community, yet are as ignorant as to say:

“Americans must see past their reluctance to paint all members of a group with a broad brush and realize our failure to act now against this clear and present danger, in the way Sam Soloman recommends, will lead to a disaster for us that is far worse than our Cold War enemies had envisaged.”

Not only was your source completely biased coming as an “expert” from the Israel Project, but the whole column pretty much was based on what he said, and that last paragraph is the biggest piece of anti-Islamic incitement propaganda I have read.

You have such a great responsibility as an editor and regardless of what you may believe, your job does not give you the right to allow for pieces that will incite hate or any other negative feeling against a whole group of people. I deeply believe that you and the author owe an apology to these people.

Ruby Gutierrez, Lincoln

Global holy war

Two members of the godless media are abducted and told to convert to Islam or die. Does anyone still believe this is not a global holy war?

Fred Naumann III, Wymore Curbs need painted

 

I cannot think that Wm. M. Lovelace (letters, Aug. 28) and I are the only ones annoyed by the street islands. These absolutely need to be painted.

When questioned on the radio a while back, I believe the mayor said the paint itself is an environmental issue. This surely can’t be true. It is a safety issue! Especially at night, these divider curbs are almost impossible to see.

Joyce K. Morgan, Lincoln

Farm Bureau did job

The political cartoon by Neal Obermeyer in the Aug. 28 Lincoln Journal Star ridiculing Nebraska Farm Bureau for its handling of the gubernatorial debate at the State Fair deserves a response.

Contrary to what the cartoon suggests, in no way did Nebraska Farm Bureau favor one candidate over the others in our negotiations of a contract leading up to the debate. The use of video of the debate was simply an item of negotiation among the candidates and was not proposed by Farm Bureau. We thought all parties were negotiating this contract clause in good faith up until a week before the debate when the Democratic candidate used the media to wrongly cry foul.

The role of the Nebraska Farm Bureau was to facilitate discussion of the format and the terms of the debate that all candidates would agree to. We strongly believe that it is our responsibility to the public to offer debates in a fair and impartial forum. We sincerely believe we accomplished that mission.

Jay Ferris, Archer, director of Grassroots Programs, Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation