Wednesday, October 30, 2002
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

LETTERS: AG candidate upstanding and fair-minded

To the editor:

As one of Jewish descent, it was with much interest that I learned of the recent flap regarding responses given by attorney general candidate Brian Sandoval to questions about his philosophy on enforcing laws in this state.

In particular, I realize there is some concern over statements attributed to the candidate regarding enforcement of hypothetical laws which would require Jewish residents to wear yellow stars similar to those required in Nazi Germany. As characterized by several media outlets, one might suspect that Brian harbored anti-Semitic or racist views. This impression would be wrong, however, as nothing could be further from the truth.

I have had the pleasure of knowing Brian and his family since 1986, when we overlapped in our studies at Ohio State University Law School. Over the years, I have been privileged to work with Brian in the practice of law, live as his neighbor, and interact with him at various professional and social functions.

I have always found Brian to have the utmost respect for all nationalities, religions, and socio-economic strata. Never -- and I emphasize never -- have I witnessed, heard, learned or observed in any context, at any time, action which would lead me to categorize Brian as someone harboring prejudicial or biased views against any particular group. To the contrary, I have found Brian and his family to be among the most upstanding and fair-minded in their interaction and treatment of others.

While I recognize that in this heated race issues and statements are often blown out of proportion for political gain, I want to set the record perfectly straight: Nevadans can rest assured that, if they elect Brian Sandoval as their next attorney general, they will be electing the same honorable, dedicated, unbiased Nevadan that I have known these past 16 years.

BARRY L. BRESLOW

RENO

No benefit

To the editor:

Pastors Dan Newburn and Ken Lieber think they are paying Summerlin dues and receiving no benefit ("Some Summerlin churches have bigger crosses to bear"). I would be happy to pick up my apportioned share of their dues if their congregations would pay their fair share of my taxes that provide them with fire and police protection, street maintenance and all the other costs these tax-free institutions receive for which I receive no benefit. I think this is a "fairness" issue, too. What a hypocritical stance for these two men to take.

NORMAN KRESGE

LAS VEGAS

Not bigots?

To the editor:

I have listened to the debate on Question 2 now for the past two years. I have come to believe a majority of its proponents are not bigots. They are just people who feel strongly that marriage, in its most traditional sense, should only occur between a man and a woman.

I believe that many of these proponents are not opposed to the bestowing of certain legal rights and recognitions to the partnerships of gay and lesbian couples. To these people, I just want to offer a few thoughts:

By Nevada law, a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The outcome of Question 2 will not change this. If someone has told you otherwise, they are lying. If the measure passes, though, it will just make it all that more difficult for gay and lesbian relationships to ever gain any kind of recognition in our state.

If you have been saying all along that you aren't a bigot, don't hate gays and aren't trying to deny anyone their rights, then this is your opportunity to prove it. Vote no on 2 or just don't vote on this issue at all. You do not have to vote yes.

JULIE HALL

LAS VEGAS

Book 'em

To the editor:

While I am opposed to all ballot initiatives which will increase taxes, I was inclined to vote in support of increased taxes for the Henderson library district. I figured that was money well spent.

My opinion changed when I went into the new Paseo Verde library last week. It's another example of where we have gone completely overboard with extreme architecture. This facility could have been constructed for substantially less if we had kept it simple.

I fail to understand how the exotic architecture in all government facilities enhances the utility of the facility. Just like the school district. Do our children learn better in a building architecturally designed for the 22nd century? What frustrates me most is that the taxpayers have no say in this waste of their tax dollars.

I went into this library to return a book that my 10-year-old son had checked out from the Sunset/Green Valley branch, because -- to quote my wife -- "They don't have any books" in the new Paseo Verde branch. The real irony is that if the city of Henderson had been more fiscally conservative, it would have had more money for books. Plus, it lost my support for the ballot question.

DON DIECKMANN

HENDERSON

Special treatment

To the editor:

As a Clark County School District support staff employee, I would like to respond to Lisa Kim Bach's Oct. 25 article on Bobby Mancuso, the former ESEA president arrested for solicitation.

All support staff should call for his termination instead of a 10-day suspension. What parent would want him as a bus driver for their child?

The district is doing the right thing finally by checking backgrounds, but he should get no special treatment just because he was president of ESEA.

Joe Furtado states that Mr. Mancuso did well as president. I beg to differ. We are out millions of tax dollars and got stuck with a crummy health insurance plan. I hope that support staff employees will realize that a co-worker in charge of our union is just that -- a co-worker with no basic skills that qualify him to be in control of our lives, salaries or insurance.

I further hope the public will demand the district consider the safety of their children and the taxes they pay.

NANCY PONIEWAZ

LAS VEGAS