February 11, 2009

Inbox — Feb. 11, 2009

Letters to the Editor

Diverse-erary LEO

I have always loved Literary LEO. I love seeing photography and poetry from people around Louisville. I do have a problem with recent Literary LEOs. Although the photography and writings are always wonderful, it seems to me that every year, the diversity gets smaller. In my opinion, a liberal arts publication should be more diverse. There are so many people in Louisville who are so artistic in so many ways, from poetry to photography. And the last Literary LEOs I have seen all have a very marginal view. In my opinion, having one judge for each category is very redundant. As an artist, and as a reader, I think the best way to capture the artistic style of the Louisville community is to have more than one judge per category. The last time I entered I was able to enter three black-and-white photos and three color photos. So why don’t you have three judges who pick their favorite photos — one black-and-white and one color? People have very specific artistic views, and to publish an entire literary magazine with the opinion of only one judge for an entire area is very monotonous, and not very diverse. I think having a group of judges for each category, who have different palates, would make a more interesting and artistically diverse magazine for the readers, and all the artists that live and work in the Louisville area.

Shannon Moore, Highlands

Obama’s Holocaust

I enjoyed Scott Wade’s “Cut from the cloth” article in LEO’s Jan. 21 issue. He drew an interesting comparison between Lincoln and our new president, Barack Obama. In the very last paragraph, of the former he correctly said, “Lincoln gave his life for his belief that all people in America, regardless of color, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And then he added, “Obama is the manifestation of that proposition.” That, too, is correct.

However, Mr. Wade failed to point out a major distinction between the two. As an Illinois state senator, and as the state’s U.S. senator, President Obama’s voting record reveals he does not truly believe that all people in America have that right to life championed by the Great Emancipator. In fact, his firm commitment to the right of a mother to kill her unborn child marks him as one of those guilty of the most immoral and shameful blot ever on our national character: the abortion holocaust.

Daniel F. McHugh, East End

Not Conscienceless

Something is stirring in Louisville that found expression in an outpouring of opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza, and now even LEO — founded by John Yarmuth, a respected member of Louisville’s Jewish community — published the Guest Commentary, “An Open Letter to Rep. John Yarmuth.” Have we all become anti-Semites, out to kill those “little David-like” Israeli Jews? Is Israel, down to its last 300 nuclear weapons, 400+ advanced U.S. fighter jets (paid for by the U.S. taxpayers), and well-trained army, now in danger of defeat at the hands of Hamas?

No! What has happened is that Israel’s senseless and ruthless war on the people of Gaza has convinced Louisville’s conscience that Israel’s mindless, high-tech terrorist bombing of Gaza was not the action of a little David, but that of an eyeless and mindless Samson, vindictively bringing down the house on Gaza and himself. Primitive missiles from Gaza were not the cause of this tragedy, Israel’s arrogance was! After pulverizing Gaza’s schools, mosques and universities, Israel is now faced with the reality that it has lost the world’s sympathy.

Louisville and America are now realizing that Israel is not a reborn “biblically prophesized” Jewish Homeland, justified as the redemption of a so-called Jewish people following the Holocaust tragedy, but a reborn Classical Greek Sparta, warlike and expansionist. Israel was created in 1947-1948, with the planned military help of the mass murderer, and Soviet leader, Joe Stalin, in an effort to end British influence in the oil-rich Middle East, and to cause chaos in that strategic region. True to its Stalinist patronage, Israel has become a morally blind, well-armed, vindictive nuclear-armed monster like Samson, thrashing about “eyeless and mindless in Gaza.”

David Eugene Blank, Highlands

Make Utilities Public

I never thought I’d say this, but public utilities really should be public, not private. (Ayn Rand never had to endure climate change.) So how do we do that, short of nationalizing the dumb thing? Here’s the Curt Morrison E.ON U.S. takeover plan: The city could set up this plan of acquiring the utility, and slowly, yet steadily, buy up E.ON stock on the exchange until it has a controlling interest.

Sure there would be a momentary spike in the stock price of E.ON, as there is with any takeover — until the Germans realized that ending up with the remaining 49 percent of stock in a utility run by a mob of angry Kentuckians wanting underground power lines, and a proven record of poor financial prowess, wouldn’t be a snazzy investment. Then the price would continue to plummet, and the spike would be offset, as the city’s equity got closer to controlling interest. The last share bought by the city shouldn’t cost more than a penny, am I right? That’s one sweet penny, since it would lead to our deliverance from this mess.

Ah, naysayers shout “but how do we finance this?” Um, duh, we sell 49 percent of the water company. (If you’re wondering, this eclectic approach may be why no one will play Monopoly with me anymore.)

Curtis Morrison, Downtown

Tax Cowards

The opponents of the library tax keep trying to justify themselves by repeating Jerry Abramson’s 2006 re-election campaign brag that he had not raised taxes (LEO Weekly, Jan. 28). It’s said this political campaign sound bite is proof that there used to be plenty of money in Metro government’s budget for new libraries. That’s pretty hard to believe, considering the budget shortfalls of the last two years.

Personally, I don’t think these folks really know what they’re talking about. They’re ideologically opposed to taxes no matter which public services are affected. As for Mayor Abramson, I think he just changed his mind. Bear in mind that there was a lot going on during the first few years of merger. So maybe Abramson was not fully focused on the library’s long-range plan. Maybe a more careful examination of the library’s needs after 2006 convinced him that another push for a library tax was worth the effort after all. This is only guesswork on my part, but I think it fits the circumstances. I was not personally involved in either Abramson’s re-election or the library tax campaign.

Anyway, we know that Abramson’s support for a new tax in the face of Reagan, Bush & Bush took guts. I respect him for that. There was nothing courageous about opposing the tax. That was cowardly.

Tom Louderback, Highlands


Republicans are playing politics with the stimulus bill, as the economy gets progressively worse. Most economists agree that a robust intervention is in order to help get the economy back on track. Americans concerned about the fate of the country should support the president and his stimulus bill.

Paul S. Mann, Lyndon


Two-thirds of the voters stood up to deceptive Mayor

By wisdom_me
Tom Louderback was insincere about claiming not to be attached to a particular side of the issue. Why did he give credit to Mayor Abramson by referring to it as a "tax" when the Mayor lied about it in the ads and did not call it that word? Tom is supporting a liar here. * Tom Louderback used some form of "I think" three times, "hard to believe," "maybe" twice, and "only guesswork on my part" in his letter so he is very unsure of himself. Therefore, he cannot claim many significant parts in his letter with surety, because they depend on a valid argument. * It is the Mayor who was the coward for not coming to the people and explaining that it was a tax in the first place in those misleading ads. Also, the ads used familiar local personalities to help con the voters. And there was never any provision that this (actual) tax would be repealed in the future, once enacted. Who would be monitoring the funds, too? * Tom Louderback is an insincere person; he has unjustly insulted any voter that helped to get rid of this con job. All that is needed is for good people (voters) to stand by and do nothing while a bad person (the Mayor) pushes through with a deceptive (hidden, no-end-in-sight) library tax. Louderback would have you believe that he "has no dog in this hunt" by claiming that he was not personally involved in supporting the library tax, however, his words must be taken with a grain of salt. If you agreed that the Mayor was insincere and dishonest and showed that when you last voted against that measure (tax), and then you were attacked as a voter for calling the Mayor on it on Election Day by the Mayor himself, and now Tom Louderback, then I have shown you the letter writer is a supporter of insincerity. Tom Louderback owes us all an apology for his undue insults.