Gender shouldn’t define a political candidate
In response to your Tuesday story about women in the Legislature:
While it was nice to see so many women actively involved in politics (though mostly Democrats), I was insulted by the tone of those contributing to the article. While misogyny is clearly unacceptable to modern society, I see misandry (especially of white males) is clearly acceptable.
Allow me to explain to the fairer gender, especially those in office and seeking office. Your gender is not a qualifier for elected public service. It does not make you smarter, more understanding, nor more competent. It is the same for males. When I look for leaders, I don’t look for gender.
I also don’t support those who believe gender makes them better candidates. My service in the military and law enforcement for over 40 years has taught me that. And, frankly, I’m tired of hearing it.
John R. Stites II
Henderson
Local patron
How nice of the MGM to allow me to park in their money-making parking garage for an hour to purchase an overpriced show ticket. I can park my car, double time my walk to the ticket window, do double time back to my car, and leave within an hour. This is allowed because when I return for the show I will have to pay to park. No thanks.
The hotels tell us, “You have to pay to park elsewhere.” That may be true, but we’re not “elsewhere.” If they want to be like other places, why don’t they pay the same gaming taxes as other places?
What about a lottery? Other places have them. Why not Nevada? Our schools, roads and police could use the extra funds.
The Strip hotels seem to be telling the locals to go to their local casino, that they don’t need or want us. So I think that is what I’ll do.
Curklin Jackson
Las Vegas
Gun law
In regard to your Thursday front-page article about Question 1, which imposes mandatory background checks on virtually all firearms transfers (“AG: Gun check law unenforceable”): The unenforceability is due to the FBI being unwilling to conduct the background checks required by the text of the ballot question that was presented to the voters. The article says some backers of the question are turning their sights on the 2017 Legislature for a fix.
Unfortunately for them, this would be against the Nevada Constitution. Article 19, Section 2 of the document states in part, “An initiative measure so approved by the voters shall not be amended, annulled, repealed, set aside or suspended by the Legislature within 3 years from the date it takes effect.”
The citizens of Nevada passed Question 1 in November 2016. It cannot be “corrected” by the Legislature until after November 2019. The Legislature meets at the start of odd-number years, so the first Legislature that may legally make any changes will convene in 2021. The 2017 and 2019 legislatures are powerless to make changes.
Of course backers will argue that it is not yet “in effect” because it is unenforceable. But that is not true — it was passed by the voters and thus it is in effect and unenforceable.
John M. McGrail
Las Vegas
California bashing
In your Wednesday editorial, “Mugged by reality,” I noticed that in your semi-annual bashing of California you again omitted the fact that if California (with all its liberal faults) were a separate country, it would be the sixth-largest economy in the world. France would be seventh, Russia would be 12th.
In your next bashing, just to keep things in perspective, you could include this. Couldn’t ya?
Bill Clements
Las Vegas
