LETTERS: JOURNET'S VIEWS OPPOSED

To the editor:

We are really lucky living here in the Bootheel. We are blessed with fine churches and good schools. Beautiful countryside and rich, abundant farmland abound. We are also fortunate, evidently, to be blessed by the presence of Alan Journet, who is kind enough to share his thoughts with us on the subject of American elective politics.

It is clear that without Journet's letters to the editor, voters in Missouri's 8th District would never have known just how bad a job our recent congressman, Bill Emerson, did in representing them. According to Journet, Emerson supported and actively endorsed the following agenda: the promotion of polluted and unclean drinking water, the crippling of the EPA leading to cancer and other diseases, the erection of roadblocks to health and environmental protection, the destruction of national forests and the giving away of Alaskan land to private interests, the giveaway of wildlife refuges in order to balance the budget, the promotion of nuclear power without equal promotion of solar, wind and, presumably, methane gas, the extinction of American wild animal species, the opposition to population stabilization in foreign countries, the subsidization of western ranchers who destroy public lands, the destruction of what Washington bureaucrats consider wetlands, the diversion of rivers for pork-barrel water projects, the putting of polluters' rights ahead of the public and the using of taxpayer money to pay polluters to clean up their own messes.

And, according to Journet, Emerson accomplished all this in just the last two years. I'd say that's quite an incredible track record, especially for a many who was undergoing cancer treatments at the same time.

Without Journet's letter, I certainly would have had no idea what a bad person our seven-term congressman was. And to think Journet's insightful letter will now serve to protect us from Jo Ann Emerson doing the same thing. How can we ever thank Journet enough? Maybe we should name the new bridge after him instead.

One might ask Journet why the voters of this district would rise up to oppose Jo Ann Emerson for endorsing the achievements and beliefs of her beloved late husband. Does Journet think the voters of this district supported the "sacrifice of the future and health of our children, family, friends and environment for short-term gratification" as he accuses the late congressman of doing? Does Journet truly believe that the candidacy of Jo Ann Emerson would "maintain a record of policies that has been consistently opposed to human and environmental health?"

R. SCOTT MATTHEWS JR.

Sikeston