Letters, 7/14: An expensive campaign

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

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

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

The political circus otherwise known as the U.S. presidential election campaign is an expensive affair. It will cost nearly $1 billion. It is not a small sum in a country with 47 million people without health insurance and another 36 million living in poverty.

If people are free to choose, why are presidential contenders spending such huge sums to persuade them?

Mohammed H. Siddiq, Lincoln

Bill will improve Medicare

AARP applauds a bipartisan majority of senators who voted to pass a bill that will protect and improve Medicare for the 44 million Americans and 268,000 Nebraskans who depend on it.

The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 allows people in Medicare to maintain access to their doctors, improves protections for low-income beneficiaries and bolsters coverage for preventive care and mental health services.

This vote — which came less than two weeks after a similar effort fell one vote short in the Senate — mirrored the broad support in the House of Representatives for the same legislation. This shows what can happen when leaders in Washington break through partisan gridlock to make real progress on behalf of their constituents.

Sen. Ben Nelson, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry and Rep. Lee Terry deserve praise for supporting the Medicare measure that will improve health care for thousands of older and disabled Nebraskans.

Regrettably, President Bush has defied the overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress by promising to veto the measure.

The final outcome of the Medicare legislation now rests with Congress. Nebraskans are counting on our state’s entire congressional delegation to stand firm by voting to override this ill-considered veto.

Connie Benjamin, state director, AARP Nebraska, Lincoln

City streets are ailing

So, the state of Nebraska has a cash reserve of $574 million. Great, maybe they could spend a little of it and repair our sick streets in the city, one being Leighton Street, north to Adams Street and on North 70th.

It’s a joke when you have visitors from out of town and they complain about some of the streets in Lincoln. Our streets are sick, maybe terminal.

Dean A. Henggeler, Lincoln

Make all fireworks legal

With the mayor seeking additional funds and the newspaper featuring illegal fireworks being brought in from our neighboring states, it occurs to me that we could use the Fourth of July celebrations to teach responsibility instead of promoting a scofflaw attitude toward fireworks, as well as help local governments financially.

My suggestion: Make all fireworks legal in the state, encouraging sales and at the same time slowing down the export of tax dollars, something Nebraskans seem so eager to do with out-of-state gambling and illegal fireworks sales.

These changes would encourage the acceptance of the responsibility of fireworks use, as well as promote the sales of this seasonal product.

If we’re not going to enforce real limitations, make everything legal, and make individuals responsible for their actions.

Jerry Frobom, Lincoln

Column was misleading

As a Brit living in Lincoln, I feel I must write to comment on Cal Thomas’ column in the July 8 edition of the Journal Star. His interpretation of a speech by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers beggars belief.

Lord Phillips’ speech was in part a defense of a lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, which Lord Phillips chaired. Lord Phillips clarified that it is possible for Muslims to conduct themselves under the principles of Sharia law without violating the laws of England and Wales, e.g., not drinking alcohol. However, any sanctions applied under Sharia law must comply with the laws of England and Wales.  

To take just two examples from Cal Thomas’ column:

First, he states that this will create a climate for underage and early marriage. There is a legal marriage age in Britain, and this applies to everyone.

Second, he states a Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her. This may be true in some Islamic countries. However — and Lord Phillips addressed this directly — “when it comes to divorce this can only be effected in accordance with the civil law of this country.”

It is astonishing that in this information age such a misleading column could be written, let alone published. You can read Lord Phillips’ speech in full by searching for it on the Internet.

Jeffrey Richards, Lincoln

The Bible condemns it

I read the letter (LJS, July 7) that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. For the purpose of thought, Jesus, in the Scripture ascribed to Him in Matthew 5:17-20, says:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Logically how does one deduce that Leviticus 18 is not part of the law that Jesus was speaking of?

If I am not mistaken the law was considered in Jesus’ time to be the first five books of the Old Testament.  

In closing, the Bible does not condemn the homosexual or the heterosexual but does condemn certain acts which the Bible says are immoral. The media seem to confuse this issue as well.

James Mohrmann, Lincoln