Someone is certainly living in ‘La-La Land’

To the editor:

Far be it from me to be a critic of those who designate the headlines for letters on the Review-Journal editorial page, but I believe two headlines in Friday’s letters section where somehow reversed. Dan Olivier’s letter was headlined “On the job” and the following letter was headlined “La-La Land.” After reading Mr. Olivier’s letter, however, several “la-la” moments stood out.

Mr. Olivier writes that Wall Street occupiers are merely a mirror image of the tea party. Really? Tea party rally groups never occupied parks, disrupted traffic, nor became violent.

And after ranting about “pump-priming” and “millionaire bashing” and “bogus hiring practices of the “entrepreneurial industries,” Mr. Olivier then reasons that the U.S. government is best suited to “prime the pump” of the economy. And this after this administration has put the country in jeopardy of bankruptcy having increased our national debt greater than the presidencies from Washington to G.W. Bush.

But Mr. Olivier puts the cherry on his “ice cream sundae” of reasoning by saying “Tea party nuts are stymieing our brilliant president’s efforts to ‘prime the pump.’ ” Brilliant president? What brilliancy has Mr. Obama shown during his tenure? Solyndra? Fast and furious? Mortgaging this country to China? Failed bailouts? And, now, priming the pump on the backs of taxpayers? Whoa.

His is the real “La-La Land” — the world Mr. Olivier believes in and wants us all to inhabit. But I think I’ll live in the real world and pass on Daniel Oilvier’s world.

George Pucine

Las Vegas

Just a warning

To the editor:

Judging from the number of drivers I see making illegal U-turns in school zones without using turn signals — even driving up on the curb — all while jabbering on their phone, I cannot help but believe it’s an endangerment to lives and property to allow this nonsense to continue.

As a bicyclist, motorcyclist and father of an elementary school child, I’m all for stopping this habit of constant connectivity. But if there is indeed sufficient safety evidence to justify discouraging driving while talking on a hand-held phone, why the three-month grace period on citations?

The lawmakers who determined hand-held cell phone use was dangerous enough to make it a punishable offense have opened themselves up to lawsuits by people or families hurt or killed by hand-held cell phone users during this three- month warning period.

Scott Bowers

Henderson