Saturday, September 22, 2018
Text Size

Letters to the Editor

No agreement on ‘compromise’

I do not have a beef with the “Capital View” commentary in The Times, but with two articles by Mary Kay Quinlan of Nebraska News Service. Researching NNS, I read a webpage announcing “UNL journalism college launches state government news service.” On the webpage are smiling faces of enthusiastic students ready to accomplish their task. Quinlan is quoted as saying “NNS will not only provide a real-world learning experience for students but will also assist the state’s news organizations in covering government decisions made daily at the state capitol.”

My concern is how her viewpoint as expressed in “Capital View” fits with the NNS goals and how it affects the student reporters (she is their overseer). I recently wrote about how liberal indoctrination can turn young brains into mush. If she is going to write commentary, maybe it shouldn’t be under the auspices of NNS. Quinlan has a fine resumé and has written books about oral history research. The books appear (to me) to be about the mechanics of researching history. Perhaps not necessarily making any judicious use of the information.

In her (01-04-12) article, Quinlan suggested our elected officials would do well to return to American history class and attempted to make the case that since our Constitution was “born in compromise,” bi-partisanship should be the preferred vehicle to good government.

The question is, what is Quinlan asking the current Congress to compromise with? Over the last 100 years our law and ethics have been slowly compromised by a relentless progressive movement. With the election of Barack Obama, progressivism boldly gave way to Marxist socialism and fascist tendencies.

The problem is, Obama doesn’t have the patience to be a good socialist. When he said, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” he was talking about implementing a system that at best would turn us into Europe and at worst has historically killed millions when taken to it’s logical conclusion.

Quinlan wrote that “ takes compromise to make things work.” I say, if destroying freedom and the very values our nation was built on is the plan, I don’t want to “make things work.” Compromise used while crafting the Constitution and compromise that threaten it’s future existence aren’t in the same lexicon. The founders intentionally made the lawmaking process a difficult proposition. They certainly didn’t relinquish their values in the “Great Compromise.”

Quinlan asked “When did compromise become a four-letter word?” That would be when President Obama first met with Republican leaders and said “I won. So I think on that one, I trump you.” Even with the influx of new Republicans in Congress, their leadership is being played for fools while our debt continues to expand by trillion$. To go one step further, Obama recently said on the economy, “And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves.” Those my friends are the words of a dictator.


Voter fraud claim is political

Voter fraud—by whom? Is it by a few misguided souls who somehow think that they can scam the election game through the use of false ID, or, are they really the proposers and proponents of legislative action who should know (and probably do know) that the goal of their action is to disenfranchise thousands of voters who may not agree with the economic or political goals of such legislative proponents, i.e., a state senator from Fremont? Perhaps justice would be more fairly served if such proposers and their proponents were denied the “right” to vote.

Many readers may recall two of the greatest examples of voter fraud in recent American history, namely, Florida in 2000 A.D. and Ohio in 2004 A.D., both of which were orchestrated by—not a few misguided individuals—but one of our major political parties, the party that claims to have a corner on American values that.elevates it to some level of moral superiority. Hah!


Early detection matters

As the facilitator of the Gothenburg Support Group, I am often involved in conversations with individuals who are concerned about themselves or someone they know with regard to signs of memory loss. One of the common questions they ask is: “How do you know if it’s normal memory loss or Alzheimer’s?”

I am quick to point out there is a significant difference between normal aging of the brain and the symptoms of Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia. Alzheimer’s disease is the public health threat of the 21st century. Today, more than 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s, and millions more serve in the emotionally and financially draining role of the caregiver. In the coming years, this disease will bankrupt families, communities, and our health care system.

Early detection of the disease can help individuals with dementia while science directs us toward treatment, prevention, and ultimately, a cure. The sooner a diagnosis is made, the sooner impactful interventions can begin.

Early detection can happen through knowledge of the 10 Warning Signs. If you or someone you know is experiencing memory loss or behavioral changes, it’s time to learn the facts. On Thursday, Feb. 2, Alexandra Dillon, who is the associate director for the Great Plains Chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association, will present “Know the 10 Signs—Early Detection Matters” at the Gothenburg Senior Center from 6:30 to 7:30 pm. Alexandra will help you distinguish the difference between Alzheimer’s and typical aging; what steps to take if you recognize a warning sign in yourself or someone you know; what is the process in receiving a proper diagnosis; and why early detection is crucial.

The information shared in this presentation is invaluable to the members of our community in helping them gain knowledge of this devastating disease. There continues to be myths and inaccurate information about Alzheimer’s disease that can lead people down the wrong path. The participants of this workshop will walk away armed with knowledge that could help them take steps in the right direction.


A little familiarity could help

I am wondering what kind of dispatch service Gothenburg is getting. I saw someone walking north of the bowling alley Thursday that looked like they needed assistance. Since I have the Gothenburg Police Department programmed in my cell phone, I called. I was put in touch with a dispatcher that insisted I give her an address. Well, I am sorry I did not have that information at my fingertips. I tried to tell her just to tell the officer “north of the bowling alley on Hwy 47” and she said she didn’t know where that was at. I said, “The officer in Gothenburg will.” I almost hung up on her and probably will not report such activity again.

However, I wonder what will happen if I have to call with a real emergency. I have heard other people talk about this same situation and am wondering what we can do about it. Are we getting the best service we can? What happened to local people who know our community? Where is this woman working from that she can’t understand the dynamics of a small town? Scares me to death.

We live in Custer County where the addresses do not match Dawson County. If the dispatcher uses our address it is very likely the rescue unit will end up a mile east of our farm with no crossroads to get back to us. However, if we are allowed to just say our names, most of the rescue unit would know how to get here. Addresses don’t always tell the whole story. We need people who understand that.


Capital View commentary

In the 12-28-11 edition of The Times “Capital View” column, Mary Kay Quinlan of Nebraska News Service, poked fun at Republican presidential candidates (even one’s relationship with her God) and the “Republican Nomination Comedy Tour.” Apparently, what began as a UNL student legislative “news” service, has become a springboard for her opinion as bureau chief.

Yes, the candidates are humans. With all their faults, they showed the courage to stand up—seeking a return to the rule of law and freedom for individuals in this country. I for one, want them to be vetted to the greatest degree possible—that we might avoid the terrible mistake made in 2008.

I side with her lamentation for the time when Nebraska had a more important role in the presidential election process and the present over-importance placed on the Iowa caucuses, as if Iowans have more political “insight” than the people of any other state. I’ve been to Iowa. Where I take umbrage, is in her descriptions of and statements about the candidates.

She refers to Ron Paul as “...the darling of the tea party folks who say they hate big government. Except please don’t tamper with their Social Security and Medicare.”

First of all, Ron Paul’s support comes only from Ron Paul supporters among tea partiers, not the movement as a whole (no more than any other organization). Secondly, why wouldn’t people who hate big government be concerned about the money stolen from them, when it could have been placed in a real investment plan? Especially at a time when Obama’s payroll tax cut threatens the funding going into the system.

She then finds an artful way to call Newt Gingrich “slimy.” As for his statement about Palestinians being an invented people and a dig at “...the former history professor’s foreign policy credentials.”? Tell me where to find a credible reference to the nation of “Palestine” being ruled by Palestinians.

She obviously likes Jon Huntsman as “...the only candidate with credible foreign policy experience...” I disagree. Rick Santorum (who I’m surprised wasn’t labeled warhawk) also has foreign policy experience. It’s not that Iowans don’t care about Huntsman. Most people don’t even know who he is. His comment about Iowa picks corn not presidents and speaking Chinese in debates, probably doesn’t help.

In her 01-04-12 column she promoted former Lt. Gov. Kim Robak as a “...respected Lincoln attorney, and surely is an example of the type of people whose credentials plausibly fit them for public office.” With all due respect to attorneys, they are the last people we need to see more of in government. I still think Democrats should be pushing Rebekah Davis as a replacement for Senator Ben Nelson.

I do not know Ms. Quinlan, but I get the sense that she may have helped vote in the circus we currently have in Washington. No one is laughing but the clowns.

Neil A. Davis, Gothenburg

Editor’s note: The Capital View column, featuring commentary about state and national events and politics, has been written for years by Ed Howard. Recently, he has not been able to offer his comments due to illness. Other writers, through the Nebraska News Service, have been filling in on a temporary basis.


Page 15 of 43