Onion should already be in sanctuary

To the editor:

The Review-Journal has become the Las Vegas Sun lite and has gone off the rails. The vicious editorial condemning Onion is but one example (“Put down Onion,” July 8). While I agree that this process has gone too far and is way too costly, the solution should’ve been to simply send the dog to the sanctuary, where it would’ve lived out its natural life without danger to anyone.

To execute Onion is not only grotesque, it’s pointless. It will not send a message to other dogs, as the death penalty for humans does to potential killers. It would only emphasize the disdain and disregard some have for domesticated pets. I think that it might be better to put down the Review-Journal than to put down Onion.



Granting legal status

To the editor:

It’s been said that we should grant legal status immediately to the 11 million (possibly closer to 20 million) immigrants in order to bring them out of the shadows, so that we know who they are. What if some of the former shadow dwellers are less than desirable, and what will be done about the segment that remains in the shadows? Probably very little. After all, they will have legal status.

Consider the message to the rest of the world. Sneak into the United States any way possible. If you successfully sneak in, you will be rewarded with instant legal status.

What am I missing?



College faculty

To the editor:

Letter writer John MacDonald tells us that conservative educators in institutions of higher learning “tend to have a much narrower view of the world than do liberal educators.” (“Conservative academics aren’t open to ideas,” July 6 Review-Journal). The logical implication of this is that liberal educators have a broader view of the world. If that really were the case:

1. Academic faculties wouldn’t be predominantly liberal, but they are. Liberals would not only welcome conservative colleagues into their departments, they would seek them out and support them when they present conservative views in the classroom. Would Mr. MacDonald care to offer a list of higher education institutions where this situation exists?

2. Free speech and free exchange of ideas would not be suppressed in college and university classrooms, but they are. Students learn quickly that actions such as disagreeing with the professor, whether during class or in a well-researched and well-written papers, might lead to lowered grades and/or ridicule. President Barack Obama told Ohio State University graduates not to listen to those who talk of government tyranny. Is that not also suppression of ideas?

3. Textbooks would not be biased toward the liberal view, but they are. A prime example is what is in textbooks regarding global warming and climate change. The available texts, and I’ve seen a fair sample, treat the topic as “settled science,” just as the secretary general of the United Nations proclaimed, despite overwhelming evidence that human activities have little or no effect on climate.

4. Political correctness wouldn’t be practiced on campus, but it is. If that weren’t the case, we might even see Islamic terrorism called Islamic terrorism.

This is only a partial list, of course.



No clowning around in UFC

To the editor:

What Anderson Silva (the clown) did during his July 6 Ultimate Fighting Championship bout against Chris Weidman was an insult to me and all UFC fans. Clowning around or showboating during a fight shouldn’t be tolerated. Such actions can change the outcome of any fight. Mr. Silva found out by losing.

Any future clowning around should be punished by a fine, suspension or worse. And any future clown should find another sport where good sportsmanship is not required.

While all fighters utilize feigning and other psychological tactics, UFC officials should know when a fighter has gone too far. UFC President Dana White should not permit clowning as a tactic in his organization.