Time to admit that drivers and cell phones don’t mix
To the editor:
Regarding the most recent accident involving someone allegedly driving under the influence of a cell phone ("SUV crashes into bus stop injuring four, one critically," Tuesday Review-Journal):
I, for one, would like to see our district attorney, David Roger, show the political intestinal fortitude to seriously crack down on cell phone drivers and treat them exactly the same as drivers who are under the influence of booze and drugs. There really is no difference.
I will be watching very closely to see if he does the right thing.
R.A. Salter
HENDERSON
American way
To the editor:
Like Jeffrey Smith (letter, June 3), I also am not an avid anti-smoker. Mr. Smith laments the fact that a "majority of Nevada voters passed Question 5," yet the law is not being enforced. "What could be more American," he asks, than democracy in action?
The fact that fewer than 26 percent of the registered voters in Nevada approved Question 5 is of little consequence. The real question is whether it is "American" to pass laws and then not obey or enforce them. It would seem this is often the case.
How may of the tens of thousands of federal, state, county and local laws can you think of that are not being enforced? It could be argued that most of our traffic laws are seldom enforced. The laws against illegal entry into the United States of America are not only seldom enforced, our police are ordered not to enforce them.
I voted against Question 5, but not because I enjoy sitting next to a smoker at the dinner table. I voted against it because I don’t think the police power of government should be used to dictate which customers a business owner is allowed to serve. Private business owners should not be told who they can invite to be their customers. They can decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking in their establishment. And we, the customers, can decide whether to frequent the business.
That is the American way.
C. DAVID CULBERTSON
LAS VEGAS
Climate change
To the editor:
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed a document at the Rio Earth Summit, whereby the United States formally acknowledged that global warming was real and required an international solution. Meanwhile, he berated Al Gore as "Ozone Man" on campaign trips.
Now, after years of downplaying global warming and censoring the conclusions of government scientists, the current Bush administration wants to take the lead in the fight on climate change. Is President Bush finally honoring his first-term campaign pledges to regulate greenhouse gases, or is the Republican Party posturing to the suddenly earth-conscious evangelicals?
Check the credentials — better wait for 2009 for real leadership on climate change.
William Fouts
LAS VEGAS
Special interests
To the editor:
Another dismal 120 days from the Nevada Legislature. The only thing more appalling than the lack of foresight and intestinal fortitude from lawmakers was the fact that a do-nothing, know-very-little governor, Jim Gibbons — someone with an approval rating of less than 30 percent — actually outwitted them.
There is no doubt that a reasonable amount of taxes are necessary, for without them we would have no defense, public education, internal security, transportation systems, etc.
The real issue is how many inefficient bureaucracies have grown up around our hodgepodge tax systems. In the beginning, these taxes may have been well-intentioned, but now they exist simply for the benefit of special interests. It seems their sole purpose is supporting more government workers.
Our local and national health care systems are a prime example of good intentions run amok, and are now being exploited by special-interest groups for their own benefit. Our representative government has become more and more responsive to narrow special-interest groups and is therefore complicit in perpetuating this type of negative behavior.
Whatever happened to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?"
Richard Rychtarik
LAS VEGAS
Deserve better
To the editor:
In her Tuesday letter to the editor, Bonnie Carrick complains of paying taxes to educate children while mentioning her fixed Social Security income.
As a young person forced to pay my taxes to support elderly people not related to me, I take offense at her ignorance. The thousands of dollars I have paid into the soon-bankrupt system is lost, so I’d like her to suck it up and realize that her children were educated on the toil of hundreds of other people — no one person’s taxes could ever cover the cost.
Teachers deserve better than a 2 percent raise; teachers deserve better than a Legislature and governor who seemingly despise them; and teachers deserve better than a disgruntled, apathetic population who only know what the newspaper prints.
RYAN YOUNG
LAS VEGAS
Teacher choice
To the editor:
Bonnie Carrick (Tuesday letter) is absolutely correct when she says that teachers have the choice whether or not to work in Clark County. That is why we will be more than 1,000 teachers short next year. Teachers are choosing to go elsewhere.
And just because our own children are educated doesn’t mean we don’t owe it to this generation to see that they, too, receive a quality education.
We are recruiting teachers from the Philippines and elsewhere who are willing to work for the meager wages we offer because, in less privileged countries, we can actually find a few teachers willing to make the choice to work here.
JOANNE SCHWARTZ
LAS VEGAS
Lying pols
To the editor:
Kudos to District Attorney David Roger. His action against former County Commissioner Lynette Boggs alleging perjury concerning her legal residence and the use of campaign funds for personal expenses should send a message to aspiring political candidates: Don’t lie!
This latest episode further illustrates the need for greater oversight over candidates’ legal residences and in the filing of campaign finance reports.
It’s past time to put an end to greedy and arrogant politicians. If they lie when they are filing for office, it’s certain they will lie if elected.
Robert Mueller
LAS VEGAS
Apple trees
To the editor:
A few years ago, I read that the west side of the Gilcrease Orchard was being sold for several million dollars. It upset many local residents who enjoyed going there and picking fruit and vegetables. Supposedly, the land was sold to keep the east side of the orchard financially fluent.
To my dismay, there is now an entrance fee of $2 per person and $1 per child. Many families have gone there in the past so children can see that produce does not just come from a supermarket. Now if mom and dad want to take their two young ones to see an actual orchard and fields of vegetables, it will cost them $6 just to go in. Then they still have to pay for any produce they pick. Where is the logic?
ELAINE WIGHTMAN
LAS VEGAS
