Kerry-Bush scorecard reflects wins for Kerry\nPerhaps if Jonathan Blanks had read some of John Kerry's proposals, he would properly recognize what Kerry represents rather than merely repeat the negative Republican mantra ("Is anyone for Kerry?" June 17). Since Blanks hasn't, here are a few reasons why people should vote for John Kerry, based on who he IS:\n1. Kerry will repeal the tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year, thus giving money to poorly-funded, necessary governmental programs (e.g., the dwindling government funding for education). However, despite Blanks' claims, in doing this Kerry does not raise taxes but simply redistributes them. Kerry: 1, Bush's tax cuts for the rich: 0.\n2. Kerry will have a foreign policy where the United States works with other nations, not in a unilateral fashion, and will restore our international respect. Kerry: 1, Bush's foreign policy: 0.\n3. Kerry will ensure NAFTA is conducted properly by fixing it to benefit the American worker, rather than solely enhancing the benefits of multinational corporations, which is how it has been conducted thus far. Kerry: 1, Republican job exports: 0.\n4. Kerry is concerned about global warming, which Bush blows off, e.g., the Kyoto Treaty. Kerry: 1, Day After Tomorrow: 0.\nThis list goes on. For example, Kerry's vision for policies in the broader Middle East, which I could further expand if I had the more than 400 words Blanks had. However, since I am restricted, I shall summarize my argument by saying that there are many reasons to vote for Kerry, but, as Blanks pointed out, also many reasons not to vote for Bush. When you think about it, either way, Kerry wins.\nKerry: 1, Blanks: 0.
Thomas Brassell\nSophomore
Still no real reason to vote for Kerry
I join Jonathan Blanks' question asking for one good reason to vote for Kerry ("Is anyone for Kerry?" June 17). The two people who wrote in in defense of Kerry only proved Blanks' point. Blanks said those who support Kerry do so for two reasons -- because he is not Bush or because they support a singular issue, i.e., abortion. \nBoth Atticus Westerfeld's and David Terret's letters to the editor mentioned Kerry's stance on abortion as a reason to vote for him. Most Democrats also feel this way, so this isn't something special about Kerry. Also, some of their other reasons are plain laughable: "Kerry is a very intelligent man because he went to Yale." Anyone who has taken a introduction to philosophy class knows this isn't sound logic. Sorry. \nFinally, the pros listed for Kerry include that "it has become clear that Sen. Kerry is naturally cautious." This is vague and unsubstantiated. It may be your opinion, but please enlighten us on how it has become so clear, because I'm still in the dark. I wait with Blanks for one good, intelligent reason to vote for Kerry. It seems to me that if these letters are indicative of the types of people who support Kerry (those who seem to have strong opinions but do a lousy job of demonstrating their point), there is another reason to not vote for Kerry.
Michelle Maher\nIU alumnus\nBound Brook, N.J.
Government right to persue helmet, laws
I am disappointed in Andrea Opperman's position about helmets and seat belts ("Don't require helmets for skaters," June 14). She made many points that from a high altitude make sense (enforcement and where does government cease its encroachment on civil liberties), but ... government must be involved somewhere, or the lowest common denominator's morals become the law. \nWho wants to pay taxes? Not me, but I understand that my money is being spent to build roads, highways and provide for a national defense.\nDo you think auto manufactures would have increased fuel efficiency, reduced pollution or installed seat belts in cars if they were not forced to?\nWithout government, who will protect the poor, uneducated and the elderly? In other societies these members are cast off as burdens.\nFrom a safety perspective, people who fail to wear helmets while skating on roads or ice, fail to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle or wear a seat belt in a moving vehicle are foolish. \nThese are exactly the people the government needs to protect from themselves and others. A friend's father was not wearing a helmet and had an motorcycle accident. He was in a vegetative state for seven years before he passed away. The state paid for his medical bills. \nWould he have survived by wearing a helmet? We will never know, but his injury cost the state an enormous amount of money. My uncle, on the other hand, was wearing a helmet when he had a bicycle accident. He landed on his head and shoulder. He broke both arms in multiple places. He suffered a concussion. His helmet was split in two. He is alive today to talk about it because for only the second time in his life, he was wearing a helmet. \nIndividuals may be making a choice to allow themselves to be hurt or killed, but should society be responsible for their ill choices?\nJust food for thought.
Sean Cattie\nPhiladelphia
Chicago lives in shadow of the Big Apple
I just wanted to say that I currently live in Chicago but have also called Connecticut and Indiana home. My answer to Emily Cooper's questions raised in her article ("The bad manner of Chicago," June 10) is simple: Chicago has an inferiority complex.\nThey're often referred to as "the Second City." This creates a big stink on the radio and TV -- they often resort to attempting to one-up New York City. Yes, folks, that's the city we're always playing second fiddle to and for good reason: Nothing compares to New York City, and no one in New York City tries to compare themselves to Chicago. \nDo you know why? Because New York City simply does not care. And that bothers my fellow Chicagoans. Maybe that's what made them so cranky when Cooper traveled to Chicago and called the local newspaper. So on behalf of my fellow Chicagoans, I'm sorry there was no Hoosier Hospitality in Chicagoland, but the people here are too busy trying to compete with the Big Apple.
Michelle Feierstein\nArlington Heights, Ill.
There's rudeness all over the country
I was very surprised by the opinion article that was written by Emily Cooper ("The bad manner of Chicago," June 10) on the "rudeness of individuals from Chicago." I grew up in the Chicagoland area, and I believe that the "rudeness" of individuals is actually addressing other individuals in a straight forward matter. \nThe reality is that people have been rude for a long time and, no matter where you live, you will find rude people. Dealing with rude people requires a little patience, limited understanding and a more straight-forward response. \nI live in South Florida, between Miami and Fort Lauderdale, and down right disrespect occurs on a weekly basis. The most beautiful winters, sandy beaches and hottest parties occur here, but everyone is so uptight and often uses their aggression while driving a car. I have had to say a thing or two to co-workers in regards to their rudeness, and often they do not know that I actually work for Broward County Government, too. How rude are you when things are not going your way?\nIt doesn't matter if you live in Florida, Chicago, New York, Bloomington or Brown County, Ind. Rudeness is rudeness wherever you go and wherever you live. Bloomington and Brown County have their share of rude people, too. I know because I lived there once, but there are often polite people, too. I hope that you don't think that 8 million citizens of the greater Chicago area are all rude. That is the ultimate generalization.
Ronald Glass\nIU alumnus\nOakland Park, Fla.
