Buy American

To the editor:

Coincidentally enough, I just purchased new tires for my SUV a couple of days before the levying of tariffs against the Chinese for dumping below-cost tires in the United States.

As a former manufacturing engineer, I have attempted to buy American where possible. I believe that as a nation, we must process raw materials into products that people want to buy to maintain a high standard of living. If we continue to give up our manufacturing base to other parts of the world, how will we as a people be able to create wealth to support our quality of life?

Certainly a Wall Street Ponzi scheme was not and is not the answer. Nor is the reliance on health care as an industry -- after all, someone has to pay for all these services by creating wealth.

But I digress from tires. As I shopped around several stores, I realized that tires are one of the few commodities where the American shopper has real choice when it comes to the country of manufacture. I found many fine brands made in the United States, some in Italy, some in Japan, and many in China. I further found that relying on brand names was not meaningful in determining where the tire was made, so I really had to look at the tire itself to determine its origin.

In the end I found a nice set of long-wearing tires that were priced competitively and made in the United States. I bought them and am pleased with the decision. I only wish I had the option of "buying American" more often, as I find it extremely depressing to go clothes or electronics shopping and literally find nothing made in our country.

I support the decision to level the playing field, and hope we do not back down to the Chinese for their unfair trading practices. When we hold our industries to high standards of worker safety, environmental responsibility, employee health and retirement programs, we can't allow offshore competitors to destroy our way of life by simply eliminating these costs.

Tariffs are a useful tool to correct these inequities.

Jack Pestaner

LAS VEGAS

'Shall make no law'

To the editor:

In response to the letter by Ed Garcia concluding: "Of course, I would defend both the Review-Journal and Chuck Muth's First Amendment right to say what they please -- as long as they follow the law while they do it."

Mr. Garcia decries the fact that Mr. Muth, a political consultant, is attempting to send a message through a prohibited printed name of his political action committee. Mr. Garcia misses the law, the point, the logic and the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Here's what the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... " The title Mr. Muth chooses sends a message, is written and communicated, and is thusly speech. A law that prohibits the message indisputably abridges speech. The assertion that the First Amendment protects Mr. Muth's position is established.

In this respect, I wish to make two points.

First, the First Amendment does not protect any class of persons or entities. It protects speech. Not speech of persons, not speech of citizens, and not speech of corporations -- just speech. For those who would say an entity does not have speech rights, everything and everyone has speech rights. Speech is protected in the same sense as the press is protected, and no one should say that the content of Time magazine or the Review-Journal can be legislatively limited merely because a media corporation owns them.

The second point goes more directly to Mr. Garcia's thesis -- "say anything as long as what you say is legal." But it is legal. The simple and missed point is that the exercise of a protected constitutional right, regardless of any statute, law, or dictate of some petty despot with a government position, cannot be a crime. The circularity of Mr. Garcia's point is evident, and he cedes to Congress the authority to abridge the Constitution, and that once a law is made, even if void, it must be followed.

Final to this issue: If Mr. Garcia's point were accepted, then the world turns upside down. Pointedly, a law prohibiting a constitutionally protected activity is no law whatsoever, and those in government who pass or prosecute such laws are violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Robert Nersesian

LAS VEGAS

No fat?

To the editor:

Richard Lake's Wednesday article "Budget cuts not over yet" details UNLV President Neal Smatresk's concern about more budget cuts needed to address current and future funding shortfalls.

Meanwhile, comments from Keith Schwer, the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at UNLV, in Benjamin Spillman's Thursday article, "Sandoval: Key to state budget fiscal restraint," reveal that he is apparently concerned that Brian Sandoval, as governor, might seek more UNLV budget cuts. "I guess what he is proposing is he wants to fire people," Mr. Schwer says. "How many firemen and how many policemen does he want to fire? How many children are not going to have a teacher in front of them?"

I'm not a yet an advocate of Brian Sandoval for governor, but in Glenn Cook's column of Sept. 13, he states that Christine Clark, formerly UNLV vice president of diversity and inclusion, will now be teaching one class this semester and get paid an annual salary of $162,760. This leads me to believe that some of these professors need to spend more time in the classroom.

Mr. Cook's column goes on to state that next semester, Ms. Clark's salary will be reduced to $135,200, which will be more in line with other College of Education faculty.

What has happened to our higher educational system that these professors can be paid so much for so little classroom time?

President Smatresk is also quoted as stating, "We are steadfast in our commitment to our educational mission. Students are our wards and our calling."

Looks like it's all about the money to me -- mission be damned.

Jerry Steffes

LAS VEGAS