Biggest buffoon lives in governor’s mansion

To the editor:

I would like to thank all you buffoons at the Review-Journal for your tireless coverage of the current health crisis. And the construction inspection scandal. And the schools. And water issues. And crooks in elected positions. And so on.

I would like to point out to our obviously ill-informed governor, who says media “buffoonery” has overblown Clark County’s health crisis, that one hepatitis C case is too many and is reason for a major alert. Six is a crisis. Did you not know that hepatitis C is deadly, Gov. Gibbons? I wonder if you are willing to sit in a room with these six people and tell them that they are not facing a crisis. Death is a crisis.

Gov. Gibbons, you are the buffoon!

When our governor adopts a shoot-the-messenger attitude and makes insipid remarks about the press doing their jobs, it’s comforting to know our local print press is willing to stand in the line of fire. Considering Gov. Gibbons’ lack of intellect, he only shoots rubber darts anyway.

This is the kind of leadership we get when less than half of eligible voters turn out. A special thanks to my favorite buffoon, Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith. To all of you, keep up the pride and professionalism in your work.

Gregory Haley

LAS VEGAS

Shrewd politician

To the editor:

Sen. Barack Obama has proved himself to be a well-versed and shrewd politician. His Tuesday speech condemning the statements of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright while hugging him is a testament to that shrewdness.

If Sen. Obama announced he was leaving the church, he loses support among blacks, whom he needs to connect the fact that he is black to the black populace. If he loses his bid for the presidency, he needs those ties to his church to get re-elected to the U.S. Senate.

The box he has put himself in now is if he were to lose his bid for the presidency, all those white folks in Illinois who voted for him have now been exposed to the rants of the Rev. Wright and the church the senator attends. Will his speech calm them? I think not.

Sen. Obama literally had one foot on the presidency while the other was on his U.S. Senate seat. His attempt at straddling the line was courageous, but he failed.

Louis Frederick

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Religious test

To the editor:

Does anyone out there still doubt that we have a de facto religious test for public office in the United States? To continue in the presidential primary race, Sen. Barack Obama must continually reassert his Christianity and reassure us that he isn’t Muslim. But debating whether he or any other candidate is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Jainist overlooks the implied underlying premise: A candidate for political office in this country must have a religious affiliation.

Plainly put, atheists need not apply. Anyone with the moral and intellectual courage to admit atheism will not be elected to national political office. Please consider what it says about this country that a politician with a life anchored in reality stands absolutely no chance of being elected, while those who subscribe to the absurd beliefs of ancient mythologies are considered viable leaders.

Lester J. Pulst

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Addictions and bootstraps

To the editor:

I agree with your Monday editorial, “It’s always someone else’s fault.” Every addiction, whether it be gambling, drugs, alcohol or food, affords the afflicted with a reason to blame their plight on something or somebody other than ourselves.

I do not believe addictions are a disease or that they are the fault of the product or service that provides what we allow ourselves to become addicted to. These are nothing more than cop-outs that allow many of us to continue with our addictions. Put the blame where it belongs, with the individual.

I have nothing against help organizations. But at some point we have to let go of these organizations and go it on our own. Many of them justify their continued existence by saying that we must go to meetings for the rest of our lives because we are “sick.”

These are nothing more than fear tactics that stop us from standing up for ourselves and, in fact, encourage further addictive behavior. Yes, there are people who need constant help, but the majority of us need to stand up for ourselves and go on with our lives without lawsuits or treatment centers, who are using our addictions to make money for themselves.

Dennis Larounis

PIOCHE

Big spender

To the editor:

In the past week, Nevada’s Sen. Harry Reid voted for a budget proposal that would let most of the Bush tax cuts expire. The Democrat budget proposal recommends raising taxes on single taxpayers earning at little as $31,850 per year and married/filing joint taxpayers earning only $63,700 per year. Middle-income earners will see their taxes increase about 10 to 12 percent.

Also last week, Sen. Reid voted against a one-year moratorium to ban earmarks. That vote speaks loud and clear his intention to continue the unchecked spending of taxpayers’ funds for any cause he believes is to his liking. Apparently, he believes he can better spend our money than can we.

If this is his idea of serving his constituents, I wish he would stop trying to help my financial situation. He is only making it worse for me.

S.G. Hayes Sr.

LAS VEGAS

We need fossil fuels

To the editor:

If a major percentage of the United States is ever covered in solar panels while another large area has wind turbine blades slicing up birds, our energy requirements will still be far from met.

Ethanol requires more energy to produce than it supplies, and its transport to market pollutes. Yet politicians continue to hoodwink a gullible public and are praised by the media for doing so. The reality is that we need fossil fuels, and will continue to depend on them for the foreseeable future.

It is time to stop the Barbra Streisand set and build refineries, build nuclear power plants and explore wherever deposits of oil, natural gas and oil containing shale are likely to be found.

Stan Ames

HENDERSON

Blaming the victim

To the editor:

Walter F. Wegst’s March 15 letter to the editor on the housing crisis (“New American way”) made me think he’s blaming the victim. He declares that “very greedy … and stupid people bought houses that they clearly could not afford.” Then he indicates that lenders were “perhaps” unethical. The letter says that the people who bought houses they couldn’t afford would be bailed out by the government. Would Mr. Wegst enlighten me on that?

Perhaps Mr. Wegst is confusing the Economics Stimulus Act of 2008 with the several in-process federal plans for dealing with the mortgage crisis. The stimulus act allows more subprime mortgage holders to refinance by raising the limit on FHA loans and raising the cap on loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy. The stimulus act does little or nothing to help the home buyer avoid the adjustable-rate mortgage “donut hole.”

The federal housing relief plans, yet to be enacted, are really aimed at assisting the lenders, not the borrowers. Some members of Congress advocate a freeze of current mortgage rates for up to five years. This would provide relief to the borrowers. Problem is, thousands of home buyers have already been dispossessed, which I believe is punishment enough for their greed and stupidity. Maybe they were just unsophisticated in dealings with unscrupulous lenders.

Now, let’s discuss the greed and stupidity of the lenders, bankers, developers and speculators involved in the mortgage crisis.

David L. Sullivan

LAS VEGAS