Let’s make sure Nevada remains the unCalifornia

The letter from Democratic Assemblwoman Peggy Pierce in the Nov. 8 Review-Journal takes a familiar argument made by the left concerning the United States as a whole and attempts to apply it to Nevada. To summarize, the argument is that the United States doesn’t tax and spend enough on the poor and disadvantaged. As a direct result, the United States is miserly — if not outright cruel — in this regard, with the implication that this is a lousy place to live. We need to expand government and spend a lot more, as more government directly means a better quality of life.

The problem with this argument is that it fails to explain why so many people in the world want to enter the United States, legally or otherwise, and live here instead of their native country. If living conditions are so great there and stink here, why do so many people prefer the United States? How many people die at sea trying to raft to Cuba from Florida?

The same applies to Nevada: If this is such a horrible place because we don’t have enough government, why has the state experienced such unprecedented growth in the past couple of decades?

Nevada is the unCalifornia. Let’s leave it that way.

James Moldenhauer

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Whose problem?

To the editor:

In response to Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce’s Nov. 8 letter — and all other Democrats:

If Nevada is 49th in high school graduates, how is that the fault of the state? How about parents and teachers?

If the state is last in per-pupil funding, let’s get the illegals out and then get an accurate number to work with.

If we are fourth-highest in uninsured children, is that the state of Nevada’s problem?

We’re 45th in prenatal care? Are you kidding me? People have to be responsible for bringing a child into this world. You know, finish school, get a job, get married and have a child or two. If you young people would do that, us seniors would stop committing suicide.

I don’t want an increase in my taxes to fund this beast.

Richard Santa Maria

LAS VEGAS

Diversity training

To the editor:

In response to your recent editorial on the University of Delaware and the Walter Williams column on the same subject:

I am currently a senior at the University of Delaware. I believe that the recent news coverage of the “diversity training” at my school has drawn the wrong kind of attention to us.

I agree, as do all of my friends and professors here, that this program was a disgusting violation of freedom of speech. However, I do not think it is appropriate to blame our president, as some of your readers have done by posting comments online. President Patrick Harker is brand new at our university and has done nothing but good since he got here. The previous administration was focused only on increasing the prestige of our university, which I am proud to say they did by getting us the standing as a public “Ivy.” But in their attempts to do this, they may have been over-zealous and overstepped their boundaries.

The university as a whole supports the growth of individual ideas by providing forums for debates over sensitive subjects and providing opportunities to attend speakers on diversity. As a member of Greek life here, I actively attend these diversity speakers with my fraternity. President Harker’s goal is to give the university back to the students while maintaining our increasingly rising standard of education. I have the utmost faith in him that he will not support this program or put into place any other like it in the future.

I also think that people need to have more faith in the students at my university and believe that people’s opinions can’t be so easily swayed by programs like this. Students have been rebelling against this program for years, and if it ever comes back, believe me, they will again.

JOSHUA SCHEIN

NEWARK, DEL.

Water banked

To the editor:

With Las Vegas’ continued growth and current drought, ensuring that the region will have reliable water is challenging (“Groundwater project will protect Southern Nevada,” Nov. 4). But Las Vegas is no Atlanta. With existing water banks in California and Arizona, Las Vegas can withdraw as much as 70 thousand acre-feet — more than double the worst-case-scenario shortage Las Vegas will face in the next 20 years.

When looking for opportunities to further ensure water reliability, Las Vegas should pursue efforts that make the most hydrological, economical and political sense. Improving indoor and outdoor water efficiency best meets these criteria.

Las Vegas’ water use is much higher, per person, than comparable Western cities. There’s room for improvement. The good news is that using our water more wisely will save residents and businesses on their water, energy and sewer bills. Cumulative water savings can also help Las Vegas support its population growth.

If Las Vegas realizes its full potential for water efficiency and conservation, it will have a new source of water. By ignoring this hidden oasis, we are making our ability to “avoid Atlanta’s fate” even more difficult.

Taryn Hutchins-Cabibi

BOULDER, COLO.

THE WRITER IS CO-AUTHOR OF “HIDDEN OASIS: WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY IN LAS VEGAS.”

At the movies

To the editor:

In response to Carol Cling’s movie review of “American Gangster”:

No, it is not one of the greatest masterpieces of all time. But it is one fine film, and certainly one of this year’s best movies. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Richard Roeper of “Ebert and Roeper,” and Bill Zwecker of CBS have all used words such as “powerful,” “dramatic,” “exciting,” “action-packed” to describe it. Yet, Ms. Cling says the movie is off-balance, cannot deliver the goods, and is not a grand slam.

She also grades the movie at a C+.

As I have stated before, Ms. Cling has an uneven and ambiguous grading system, one that seems to be affected by her mood for that day, rather than her looking at a movie from an objective point of view. So, perhaps the Review-Journal can keep her for the independent and art house movies, and then hire someone else for those movies that the rest of us go to see and enjoy.

CHRIS DELORGE

LAS VEGAS

Border patrol

To the editor:

In response to the debate over illegal immigration:

The majority of us who are opposed to amnesty are not opposed to changing the immigration laws. If we need more workers, change the laws and allow more to come in legally. We aren’t afraid of diversity.

But we just want to be sure that everyone has to obey the rules. We are not racist (an easy label for anyone who disagrees with a position). We aren’t even afraid of making the 11 million people now here citizens. We are, however, deeply afraid of the 25 million that will see that as another incentive to come here illegally.

We need to change the law so that no child of an illegal is a citizen. We need to allow schools and hospitals to ask for proof of legality so they do not have to provide services to those who are illegal. I know they will say that we would be hurting the children.

But perhaps if they knew that their children would not be educated for free or given the health care they need, they just might stay home and fix their own country.

VICKY DE LEO

OVERTON