To the editor:
Ryan Wilkerson's Tuesday letter and other related letters and stories regarding mandatory school attendance are all shortsighted and directionally challenged. We should eliminate mandatory attendance beyond the sixth grade for numerous reasons.
First, we'll rid the school system of those with no motivation to be there. It's folly to try to force feed education to those unwilling to accept it. Those lunkheads will be fodder for all the low-paying jobs that illegal aliens now take. No aliens need apply when we have a home-grown source of cheap labor.
Second, discipline problems will disappear overnight, with the troublemakers now begging under freeway overpasses. Teachers will be able to teach -- no excuses for bad performance, now! We'll be able to eliminate the school district police force. Schools would be Metro's problem.
Third, we'll have fewer students to educate. New school construction will stop, we'll have a surplus of teachers, and property taxes will plummet. Yahoo!
Fourth, a new adult night school program will blossom in two to five years, utilizing our nearly vacant schools in the evenings, remediating the former lunkheads who have since realized their folly.
So now it is clear that the only real choice we have is to reduce the mandatory school attendance age, period. It's good for everyone. And it will reduce global warming.
Mark R. Craven
To the editor:
I watched Wynn Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn on "Fox News Sunday" and read the article in Tuesday's Review-Journal Business section, "Wynn won't quiet views." While watching the show and reading the article, I was reassured that there was a sane person left in the country.
Then came the "just kidding" moment: Mr. Wynn supports Sen. Harry Reid.
The senator spent the past eight years doing everything in his power to stop President George W. Bush, but Mr. Wynn believes Sen. Reid will do the right thing when it comes to Barack Obama. Mr. Wynn, hasn't the senator voted for everything that has gotten us to where we are now? Is he not pushing for more of the same?
So let me get this straight: When the government owns everything and employs everyone -- which is where we're headed, according to Mr. Wynn -- Sen. Reid will say "Stop, Mr. President, mission accomplished"?
The same day it was reported that GOP Sen. John Ensign's parents also support Sen. Reid. To them I would like to say, "Thank you. Now I can quit supporting your son."
I took from both articles that friendship will override country, at least in the state of Nevada.
To the editor:
I agree completely with Patrick Buchanan's Sunday commentary on illegal immigrants displacing legal Americans from what few jobs are available. We have 25 million Americans out of work, and 20 million illegals. The math is simple, the results easily seen -- and none of them are good for the future of this country.
A couple of other points rarely get mentioned:
There are no jobs Americans won't do -- as long as they can earn a living doing them. When President Reagan gave the illegals amnesty, they treated it as an open invitation to take jobs at any wage that was higher than what corrupt Mexican employers would pay them. Greedy American employers saw it as a bargain and replaced their legal work force with illegals.
I heard all the rationalizations that this would keep America competitive -- then they shipped the factories to China. Net loss to legal Americans equals 100 percent. How is any of this good for America?
The other point: Why don't the illegals go back to Mexico and have a revolution there? They can change their corrupt system and make Mexico a wonderful place that is a shining beacon of hope for Central America. I realize it takes a great deal of courage to fight to change a corrupt society. At times, America has been a cauldron of corruption. However, brave people fought to make this country the best on Earth. Why can't the Mexicans and other illegals do the same for their home countries? Or do they not love their homes?
To the editor:
The banks bemoan a lack of profitability from those who do not carry an interest-bearing balance on their credit cards.
What is never said -- and also ignored by the media -- is the payment to the credit card company by the merchant accepting the card. It can be substantial: Ask your favorite restaurateurs, who wish you would pay cash.
If I must pay a fee to use any card I carry, I will cancel all but the cheapest, retained to use when necessary. I will then pay my restaurant and supermarket in cash. The credit card company will lose more from me than gained by the annual fee.
Can ATMs be next?