OUR READERS RESPOND

     
     
     40 years of failure
     
     To the editor:
      In response to Ruth DiMaggio's March 30 letter, I see that the current liberal Democratic response to conservatism is reduced to an attack on the messenger. I am sure if liberals like Ms. DiMaggio had any fresh ideas they would be willing to offer them up instead of mounting a personal attack against Rush Limbaugh. That tells me that he is still effective.
      After 40 years of failed liberal policies, they have no shining examples of accomplishment to hold up. Has the war on poverty been won? Not yet. In fact, we have more poor today than before President Johnson's Great Society programs started. Just a few more federal programs and a few more billion should do it, so they tell us. Yes, the liberals' only defense is reduced to name calling.
      I assure Ms. DiMaggio if Rush Limbaugh were to disappear tomorrow, which he will not, the conservative ideals will remain. Belief in one's self and the human spirit, given the freedom, will prevail to accomplish more than another stifling government program. Pride in oneself, one's country and a sense of accomplishment come from freedom, family and hard work, not from a federal program or unearned check.
      The saddest part of liberalism's failings is how many great inventors, scientists, musicians and artists have been held captive by the current compassionate programs that stifle the human spirit. As told by the liberals, they are too disadvantaged for one reason or another to make it on their own and to take advantage of all the opportunities that this country has to offer without the government's help. The liberals continue to tell them their only chance rests with the federal government.
      So, Ms. DiMaggio, there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats stand for name-calling and personal attacks, and the Republicans stand for ideas.
     MIKE DOBIE
     Pahrump
     
     
     
     Selfless service
     
     To the editor:
      The Review-Journal March 11 editorial rightly placed part of the blame for an expensive legal system on attorneys who "milk it for all it's worth" and on "overzealous lawyers."
      I find what appears to be a perfect example on page 3B of that issue: Caren Benjamin's article about a do-gooder attorney wanting to launch a class action suit against the major tobacco companies. The piece cites Robert Gerard's motive as "an attempt to protect the residents and citizens of the state of Nevada."
      Wow, is that noble or what? He probably doesn't even know all of those residents and citizens, yet is willing to undertake this unselfish effort on their behalf. What a guy.
      Funny, I missed the part about his fee. Because he is obviously motivated by a desire to render a public service, I would assume that lawyer Gerard seeks no personal enrichment for his expertise, given his unselfish devotion to 1) the poor duped people, and 2) the cause against the rich tobacco giants and their nicotine.
      By the way, since this whole case seems to rest on the word "addictive," I'll add that three years ago I decided to quit smoking, after sustaining a pack-and-a-half habit for 50 years. No story; I just quit.
      And now that I reflect on that day in early 1994, I'm sure glad that nobody told me how addictive it was; I might not have been able to quit.
     BOB KAYTES
     Las Vegas
     
     
     
     Biased against men
     
     To the editor:
      Attorney Marilyn Romanelli's opinion piece, "Family judges able, hard-working" should be retitled, "Let's slug fathers who demand involvement in the lives of their children after a divorce."
      Her statement, "I will advise that the real reason for the backlog of family cases is the willingness of errant fathers to elect to pay greedy lawyers instead of child support," is absolutely amazing. She attempts to blame fathers who want custody or access to their children -- often after being denied it by angry custodial mothers -- for all the problems of the court system.
      With no statistics coming out of the court system, fathers are an easy target. With Ms. Romanelli's attitude I hope she is not taking any men as clients, because she is obviously unable to separate her biases from reality.
      Men want involvement with their children. Men are increasingly taking issue with a system which often keeps them from their kids. Where is it written men can't be primary care givers? What facts, statistics or law back up the briefs of biased attorneys and judges like Marilyn Romanelli who believe in the tradition that children belong with the mother?
      For those of us who pay our child support and are respectable citizens, what is her excuse that statistically men get custody of their children less than 10 percent of the time? What is a man's role to be? In Marilyn Romanelli's book it appears men are only to be the wallets to their children, not parents.
      The court system needs to be held accountable for decisions that appear to favor women in divorce. It is difficult to know, though, because the court system doesn't have itself well enough organized to be able to give an accounting to us taxpayers of its behavior. I salute the Review-Journal for its decision to uncover the failings of the court. We consumers eagerly await the change of this system.
     DEAN HUGHSON
     Las Vegas
     
     
     
     Getting them ready
     
     To the editor:
      In response to Kris Jensen's letter published in the Review-Journal on March 31, I would like to correct a statement she attributed to me. The actual statement I made to Mrs. Jensen was: "The school district has a neutral position on mandatory kindergarten but we want the money to fully fund kindergarten."
      Full funding of kindergarten is a published legislative platform of the Clark County School District. Unfortunately, Ms. Jensen chose to abbreviate my comments to support her perception that the district cares more about money than children.
      I am deeply offended that Ms. Jensen chose to use my name and misrepresent my comments to cast the school district in an unfavorable light.
      When I am not serving as the lobbyist for the school district, I am the principal of an at-risk school. It is in that capacity that I applaud Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani for her efforts to bring to the Legislature the issue of the importance of early childhood education and the need for children to be ready to learn in first grade.
      I am personally and professionally deeply committed to those at-risk children who do not come to school with the learning readiness for either kindergarten or first grade.
     CAROLYNE EDWARDS
     Carson City