I’ve come to wonder why so many people have been labeling Michael Phelps as a hero for his recent gold medals in the Olympic games. Yes, he’s talented. He has won 14 gold medals — five more than any Olympic athlete has ever won. But “hero” isn’t the right word. What on Earth has he done for anyone else? He’s a hard worker, but it’s personal gain. Sometimes people are heroes for overcoming disabilities or hardships with great achievement. And someone might argue that he’s a hero to America for representing his team in such a wonderful way. But what has he done for America besides make us proud? And what has he overcome besides being an average American Joe? Nothing.

According to a recent CNN article, Phelps already has earned $6 million per year in endorsements from companies such as Visa and Speedo and is expected to be earning between $30 million and $50 million in endorsements by the end of the year — right behind golfer Tiger Woods and soccer player David Beckham. Woods has donated much of his endorsement money and time to youth charity, including his own Learning Center for children in grades four through 12. Beckham is a spokesman for “Malaria No More,” an organization that works to end malaria-related deaths in Africa, and is also a UNICEF sponsor. Let’s hope Phelps follows their lead.

I am absolutely not saying that Michael Phelps isn’t a positive role model or that he doesn’t deserve to be honored and congratulated for what he has accomplished, nor am I saying that we Americans shouldn’t be proud. What I’m saying is that until he uses his endorsement earnings in a constructive and unselfish way, he will simply be a positive influence to me but certainly not a hero. I hope Michael feels as strongly toward helping the less fortunate as he does toward swimming. If he does, and he is as good a person as his mother says he is, he’ll move mountains with his newfound wealth.

Amy Miles, Lincoln

Encourage, don’t mandate

The ethanol hearing hosted by Sens. Ben Nelson and Tom Harkin on Monday in Omaha was an opportunity to hear all sides of the energy debate. Nebraska’s largest industry, beef, was not invited to speak, but we feel it is critical for the public to understand our position on this debate.

Renewable fuels are important to the Midwest and the nation. There is great opportunity for synergistic relationships if markets are allowed to work. However, mandating production and usage has never been good over the long term for any industry, for several reasons.

First, it promotes inefficiency by forcing products into the market. Incentives to improve your product are stronger and better in the long term when they are demanded by your consumer rather than guaranteed by the government.

Second, mandated production artificially sets a demand for the raw product that is unfair to other users of that raw product. Ethanol from corn is an established technology, and true demand should determine how much is produced, not the government.

Third, the renewable fuels standard is building an industry that cannot be flexible or responsive to market forces. What happens if corn, ethanol and crude prices are at levels that make ethanol unprofitable? Wouldn’t it be better if ethanol plants could adjust production when the market tells them to?

Finally, the RFS does not promote a working relationship between industries; rather, it forces a relationship. Rather than mandate that packers produce the flat iron steak, for example, cattle producers promoted it to consumers. Packers now have consumer demand driving their production of the flat iron, not a government mandate.

Nebraska Cattlemen is a strong supporter of diversified renewable fuel research and development. We ask that all Nebraskans be allowed to operate in a free economy that will produce the best products for our fellow citizens. We believe that cattle, corn and ethanol working together can be a great opportunity for Nebraska provided the playing field is fair.

Michael Kelsey, Nebraska Cattlemen executive vice president

Leave it to history

While President Bush has been under relentless attack from the liberal establishment for coming up on eight years, I expect that overall in the pages of history he will end up as one of our better-regarded presidents. Despite all the criticism of him, we have not, for example, suffered another attack from terrorists within the United States as was uniformly predicted in the weeks and months after Sept. 11, 2001.

I expect that 100 years from now, the historical criticisms of the Bush presidency will devolve around his tendency to be, as I frame it, too Christian — to see in others good that is not there.

In the case of Russia, the president, having looked in Vladimir Putin’s eyes and having believed he had seen Vlad’s soul (rather than the letters K G B that Sen. John McCain more accurately saw), the president proceeded to treat Vlad accordingly.

Perhaps history will show the error of making nice with Russia was for the best. Perhaps history will show that as a result of making nice with Russia, all but the most rabid appeasers and apologists came to understand Putin and Russia.

Perhaps history will show that the error of making nice with Russia served to motivate responsible leaders, Democrat and Republican, American and European, to come together to act as rapidly as possible to do what it is now clear already should have been done — build a fence of new NATO nations, composed of Georgia (as President Bush attempted to do earlier this year), Ukraine (up for admission to NATO in December in response to the president’s pressure) and other former Soviet slave states around the aggressor. We must pen in the Russian Bear so it can become no stronger; we must keep from it the hammer and sickle it wishes to pick up.

William Stone, Lincoln

‘Tropic’ numbers

I read where the movie “Tropic Thunder” opened at No. 1 last weekend. I am wondering if they subtracted the number of people who walked out of it before it was over.

Jim Leacock, Lincoln

Call it ‘homeowner pain’

I’ve heard a lot about the “brain drain” in recent years. Elected officials, local media and others keep telling me that Lincoln and the state of Nebraska are losing the best and brightest to other states.

I’ve been a Lincolnite all my life. I’m a graduate of Randolph Elementary, Lefler Junior High, Lincoln High School and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. At each step through that journey, I’ve seen that “brain drain” in action, watching friends leave town for the bright lights of far-away cities and the promise of higher-paying jobs.

Through it all, I’ve stayed. I started a family, and a few years ago my wife and I bought a home. I’ve been proud to make my investment in The Good Life. Then I found out that the Lancaster County Board may reward my investment by raising my property taxes.

If our elected officials are serious about keeping homegrown talent in the state, they may want to consider the burden they’re placing on us every time they get an itch for a new pet project. And if the local media want a new story to write, I’ve got a new catchphrase. Instead of “brain drain,” we’re suffering from “homeowner pain.”

Ben Johnson, Lincoln