Letters, 6/22: AG's plan equals injustice

 20 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

I read with interest in the June 19 Lincoln Journal Star that our attorney general plans selective enforcement of the law that requires Nebraska residents to register their cars in Nebraska as a means of setting an example.

Sorry, that selective enforcement of laws equals injustice in anyone’s book. Selective enforcement to set an example is a misuse of both law and law enforcement.

If there were mistakes in the 10,000 notices sent out, then correct the mistakes. It only seems fair to all that each of the 10,000 notices should be checked out; otherwise, why send them out?

Perhaps it is time for someone to investigate the operations of the attorney general’s office for compliance with the state constitution and laws governing that office.

As I recall, one of our national mantras is “justice for all.” Let’s try to be more faithful to our principles.

Howard R. Bailey, Lincoln

Obama has more sense

In reply to Charles Krauthammer’s column (LJS, June 15):

Apparently he has not heard Barack Obama speak. Obama is a Harvard law graduate. Not only did he have to be brilliant to get that degree, he is also a spiritual man. He knows his place in this universe with his maker. When a person has risen to that point, you can be sure he has a lot of common sense. Something that this administration has none of.

He will actually listen to all his advisers with an open mind and take the best advice given to him. He will end this war when it’s the right time, using the right strategy. You see, he doesn’t think he is taking God’s place like the last bunch did.

He doesn’t plan to rule with an iron hand of stubbornness and stupidity like we’ve had for 7½ years. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Well, now we have another out-of-touch man, John McCain, running to take Bush’s place. Like in the 2004 election, Republicans can’t wait to vote for another hawk, because they believe the continual fear talk that we are about to be attacked again and our security is at stake.

Mr. Krauthammer should try to listen to someone with a brain, like Obama. He’d be amazed!

Anita Crouse, Lincoln

Partisan bickering

City Council discussions of a Near South housing redevelopment (LJS, June 17) appear to have had less concern for revitalizing a core part of the city than for partisan bickering.

Our family has lived 150 radial yards away from this “blighted” and “fragile” area for almost 18 years, and we heartily endorse any reinvestment in the Near South. Developer Katie Halperin should be commended on her $2.3 million investment to develop condominiums where two apartment buildings now stand.

What smacks of odd partisanship came from council members Ken Svoboda (no relation) and Robin Eschliman. Svoboda showed the most gall when he raised the conflict-of-interest issue when he pointed out that Jon Carlson, mayoral aide charged with improving the city’s core neighborhoods, owns a home and rental properties in the area.

Unlike Svoboda, who runs a small business that contracted (and didn’t meet) terms of a city contract, Jon Carlson was hired two weeks after the vote designating the area blighted, thus it was eligible for incentive-based financing. Carlson benefits only, it appears, from his property values in the city core increasing. We should all be so fortunate.

I don’t know Carlson personally but have met him in passing, as his house sits one block away from ours. What I can tell you is that I consider him a steward of the community. He is active in the Near South Neighborhood Association over the years and even served as president some years back.

That Robin Eschliman construes this as a conflict-of-interest belies her voting “no” to a more transparent (and real) conflict-of-interest resolution for city employees and city contracts earlier this spring.

Scott Svoboda, Lincoln

Deer overpopulation absurd

On June 13, the Lincoln Journal Star carried a report from Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner about a 76 percent increase in vehicle-deer collisions reported to the sheriff’s office in 2008 through June 11, compared with the same period last year.

As a Lincoln Journal Star contract carrier for a rural Lancaster County motor delivery route, I can attest to the growing hazard to rural traffic from our apparently ever-expanding deer population.

Growing up in eastern Kansas in the ’40s and ’50s, the only times I saw deer were in zoos and specially fenced reserves. Even into the ’60s, it was more common to see wandering cattle in the roadways than deer. I have been told that the experience in eastern Nebraska, during that same period, was much the same.

However, over the past 40 years or so, it appears the Nebraska Legislature and Game and Parks Commission have made policies favoring the protection of deer in the wild. These policies have led to the present overpopulation of these game animals for the benefit of that minority of our number who choose to hunt them.

The absolute absurdity of the present policy regarding Nebraska’s deer population should be self-evident. I don’t remember hearing of our hard-pressed farmers lobbying to have increasing amounts of their grain crops eaten by these herds. I don’t believe  our nonhunting population of drivers, or their insurance carriers, asked to be exposed to greater financial losses and personal injury for the pleasure of our hunting population.

I have already had one fair-sized doe leap onto the hood of my car, roll up and over the roof and off the other side within the past 10 months.

I have had, and will continue to have, dozens of other close calls on a regular basis. So, I would like to know to whom in state government I should submit my claims for loss the next time this occurs.

Robert L. (Bob) Clark, Lincoln