More on Obama’s background as a ‘professor’
To the editor:
In response to Larry Blackwelder’s Tuesday letter (“No professor”) regarding President Obama’s position at the University of Chicago Law School, I went to the source: the university’s web page. Here’s how it describes the president’s position:
“From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the law school. He was a lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a senior lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior lecturers are considered to be members of the law school faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of senior lecturer is distinct from the title of lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the law school’s senior lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the law school, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
I find it surprising that anyone would accept Wikipedia postings as unquestionable fact, unless it posts what one wants to read. It is not difficult to find the truth, if one really wants it.
Joel Rector
North Las Vegas
Sink or swim
To the editor:
I would like to thank columnist Sherman Frederick once again for his insightful history lesson on the Paris Commune and its frightening implications for the political legacy of the United States (Sunday Review-Journal). My only question is how does he ever leap from 19th century France to 21st century America with a straight face?
Mr. Frederick equates murder and arson with “a warm and numbing embrace” of group fairness and security (read: taxes). Social networks designed to help the needy overcome adversity compared to anarchy and mob government? The guillotine with democratic courts?
Mr. Frederick’s is a long reach, but it does reflect one main component of thought from the political right: Strong central government is intrusive in the lives of good, hard-working Americans, and it’s best to let everyone sink or swim on their own.
John Esperian
Las Vegas
Nacho cheese
To the editor:
I have to disagree with the Monday letter by Dale Wood regarding the clandestine energy policy agreement between Big Oil and President Bush.
The Bush administration did not make a secret deal with Big Oil. The White House actually made an agreement with King Meepzorp, of the planet Cheesius 9, who had threatened to turn all our crude oil into nacho cheese sauce unless we defeated Barack Obama in the next election. It seems that the Cheesians are racists of the worst kind, who also enjoy poisoning babies and dogs.
Please Mr. Wood, get your facts straight, or else you’ll invite global destruction by nachos.
Mark Morris
Las Vegas
No hope
To the editor:
This General Services Administration debacle is just another example of the attitude of our government officials. How can this administration ask the American people to pay higher taxes when this is what they’re being spent on? Apparently more cutting of government waste is needed.
Federal officials say they have to fix this problem, but the only fix will be to make sure they don’t get caught next time.
As for ObamaCare, it’s now predicted that the original figures are bogus and it will cost twice as much or more — big surprise. Keep your own medical plan? Not possible if they go out of business or your employer decides to drop this coverage completely. Cost savings, you know.
Then our president dares the Supreme Court to disagree with his royal decree that all Americans enroll or pay a penalty — as if we can afford that, either. Mr. Obama holds that this non-elected body (some appointed by Democrats) has no business deciding the law of the land. Audacity of hope? The president has plenty of audacity, but it has nothing to do with hope.
I’m all for the promise of hope and change. However, it’s too late for hope, and the only change I see is what’s left of my paycheck after I pay my ever-increasing bills. Maybe it’s not too late for a stimulus for the taxpayer. Caveat emptor!
Roger Ouellette
Las Vegas
Secret election
To the editor:
The quality of a democracy can often be determined by the quality of its elections. Privacy and a lack of coercion is a must.
In the ongoing battle between the Culinary union and Station Casinos, it’s the Culinary that is insisting on a card check instead of a secret ballot. The amazing thing is, union sympathizers think this is OK.
I’m looking forward to this year’s presidential elections, when I’m sure the Culinary will work hard to get out the vote. It should be interesting at the polling places. I guess there will be two lines. One for non-union members who will get a secret ballot, and one for union members who will have to show their ballot to union leadership.
Make your blood boil? I should hope so. Sort of gives a different perspective on who’s doing the intimidating.
Philip Cohen
Las Vegas
