Conservative academics aren’t open to ideas

To the editor:

I’m not a conservative, but I usually read the editorials and columns in the Review-Journal. I would like to comment on Sherman Frederick’s Sunday column on discrimination of conservatives.

He begins by complaining about discrimination of conservative educators in institutions of higher learning. Educators are expected to be open-minded about diverse ideas. Conservative educators tend to have a much narrower view of the world than do liberal educators. Mr. Frederick writes, “Real diversity that truly benefits all students can never be achieved without diversity of thought.” He is correct.

Conservatives tend to disavow much of well-studied science and rely on a relative few science naysayers to support their views. Consider evolutionary theory, acidification of the oceans, the age of Earth, melting ocean ice and ice-covered land and the origins of man.

Conservatives tend to believe in corporate America in spite of the problems corporations create. These problems include, to name a few, water pollution, air pollution, denial of anthropogenic contributions to increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, and the belief that a free market will make us all wealthy.

Conservatives tend to believe that all regulation of industry stifles growth, yet industry tends to take advantage of the marketplace whenever regulation is reduced or eliminated. Think here about banking and the real estate market. Regulations that would have prevented the subsequent deep recession were repealed in the 1990s (admittedly during a Democratic administration, which doesn’t remove anyone’s culpability). Current attempts at banking regulation have left banks with just about the same freedom as before the Great Recession.

My belief is that everyone should be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and thoughts and then be allowed to base their own opinions on them.

JOHN MACDONALD

LAS VEGAS

Sugar subsidies

To the editor:

I’m writing in reference to the June 21 article, “Nevada lawmakers help kill farm bill that would have cut back on food stamps.”

This year’s farm bill would have made substantive changes to nearly every commodity program operated by the federal government except sugar. Although an amendment offering modest reforms was defeated in favor of the status quo, I applaud the Nevada delegation of Reps. Dina Titus, Mark Amodei, Joe Heck and Steven Horsford, who voted for the amendment, a vote for 1,000 good Nevada confectionery manufacturing jobs and for Nevada consumers and businesses.

Currently the government controls who can grow and process sugar and how much can be imported. All these controls are for one purpose: guaranteeing that sugar producers and processors always profit. When sugar prices are high, consumers pay nearly double the world market rate. When prices are low, the government bails out sugar producers. Over the next few years, American consumers could pay hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase excess sugar.

The sugar program is a failed policy that threatens Nevada businesses, growth and job creation. Sugar reform must be part of any new farm bill. I appreciate the support of the Nevada delegation and know we can continue to count on them to vote in favor of the citizens, workers and businesses of our great state.

JOE DUTRA

RENO

The writer is president and owner of the Kimmie Candy Company.

Employee freedom?

To the editor:

Regarding the editorial in Sunday’s newspaper, “Employee freedom”:

I’m so tired of reading about the Nevada Policy Research Institute and how it thinks it has to tell the teachers how to withdraw from the union. I taught in the Clark County School District for 26 years and was a member of Clark County Education Association for all 26 years. I was also a union rep for my school. Except for the past two years, no organization felt it needed to inform the teachers how to withdraw from the union.

Any time a member had a question, if I couldn’t answer it, I would call and find out — even if it was about how to withdraw from the union. The fact that your editorial makes it seem as though teachers are not informed is both ridiculous and insulting. It seems suspicious that, all of a sudden, NPRI is getting involved. I think they are the ones with the agenda.

ANNETTE COCO

LAS VEGAS

Desai verdict

To the editor:

Congratulations, Las Vegas. You found Dipak Desai guilty of murder (Tuesday Review-Journal). Was he guilty of malpractice? Maybe. But not murder.

What was it that so incensed you to vilify this man? He ran his office like an assembly line? You must not have been to a doctor’s office lately. Malpractice insurance costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and because of doctor shortages, most offices are run the same way. Cheap? Ask any doctor’s staff member if she or he thinks their doctor is cheap. Ego? Oh yeah, he had an ego. Now that’s a surprise. A doctor has an ego? I’m sure he had his share of enemies, maybe more than his share. He’s bankrupt, shamed, and he lost his medical license.

In your heart of hearts, do you really think Desai murdered someone? You got others to testify against him by saving their own skins. If indeed he pinched pennies with unsafe practices, shouldn’t those who went along with it be guilty as well? Given their options — testify or go to jail — is it possible they told the absolute truth?

They are back at work, you know. I wonder how they feel now that Desai’s been found guilty of murder.

It sure looks as though frontier justice has been at work here. I for one don’t feel too good about it. I think this man may have been found guilty of murder simply because he wasn’t liked.

SCOTT JOHNSON

LAS VEGAS