To the editor:
Should the Washington politicians desire a "civilized debate" on having the government regulate and control everyone's health care, perhaps they should consider actually crafting a "civilized bill" for the citizens of this nation to consider. Yes, a civilized proposal; one that is consistent with our people's culture. A proposal for a free people who demand the freedom to decide health care choices on their own, without federal government mandates, direction and controls.
Craft a health care bill acknowledging that health care is a matter for the patient and the doctor and impose regulation only as deemed necessary by the several states, with no federal taxes, federal bureaucracy or federal regulations allowed from the corrupt Washington politicians and their numerous special-interest lobbyists. A revolutionary idea? Not really, as it's found in the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
If these Washington bozos can't even read the 1,100 pages of socialist garbage in their proposed laws to rule their subjects' health care and personal lives, they should try reading the several pages of the Constitution.
It is observed that people will be "civilized" when these tyrannical Washington usurpers comport with the articles of our Constitution, and stop exercising power therein denied them. Didn't each one of these "public servants" take an oath to follow the Constitution?
In Washington, perhaps an oath means nothing these days.
To the editor:
Michael Kinsley misunderstands America's fear of "change" ("Clinging to the status quo," Aug. 30 Review-Journal).
What many people fear is not change, but what they see as society-wrenching revolution plowing under their basic beliefs.
The social progressives can sneer all they want about conservatives putting lipstick on a pig and it still being a pig, but they are using the "change" word to put mascara on a charging bull elephant, and the people are left without even a gun to protect themselves.
The crazy thing is the voters elected this revolution called "change" either because they didn't hear the message or because they weren't listening. Everybody is stuck with it for now.
To the editor:
After reading Tim Ryan's letter on Tuesday supporting Harry Reid in his dust-up with Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick, I must respond.
Mr. Ryan states that, "If there was a viable alternative to the Review-Journal ... it would have a large readership." Mr. Ryan sounds like a recent immigrant, perhaps from California, because he seems to be ignorant of the past.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past that the Las Vegas Sun was published as a stand-alone newspaper. Hardly anyone wanted to read this "paper," but the Review-Journal, in the interest of diversity of opinion, revised its Joint Operating Agreement with the Sun, which eventually led it to carry this leftist paper within its pages. The Review-Journal could pay its own bills and had no reason to keep this enterprise going, but it recognized that the truth may be easier to see when viewed side by side with socialist drivel.
Ever notice, Mr. Ryan, how the Review-Journal letters section often contains example after example of people with viewpoints opposed to the newspaper's editorial opinions? The Review-Journal is unafraid of dissent, as opposed to the political correctness police from left-land. While I do not always agree with the newspaper's editorials, such as their endorsement of Harry Reid last time around, I respect its willingness to air multiple points of view.
I will say that Sen. Reid's statement, which caused all the fuss, is much ado about nothing (assuming one already knows about political careerism, i.e. it leads to office holders getting high-handed). Mr. Ryan's tactic, however, is typical of lousy political argument, i.e. when someone you like is criticized, trot out examples of other people who are "worse" instead of defending your favorite.
Admittedly, some time has passed since the JOA between the Review-Journal and Sun was created, and many California immigrants unapologetic about the way their former home has been destroyed by huge government have come to Nevada to screw it up just as badly. There may well be a larger audience than before for socialist dogma. Perhaps the Las Vegas Sun could support itself now. Maybe its editor, Brian Greenspun, should go back to publishing it himself and take the Sun out of my newspaper. I'd be willing to try it.
Kevin L. Stockton
NORTH LAS VEGAS