China deserves third-rate reputation
To the editor:
It's interesting how tyrants blame others for the uncomfortable situations in which they find themselves. The recent criticism of the Dalai Lama and U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by China's leaders comes to mind.
Because the Dalai Lama and Ms. Pelosi have the temerity to speak out, China accuses them of stirring up human rights issues to tarnish the country's image; an image, I might add, already tarnished by pollution, corruption and blood.
While the Chinese are busy polishing everything in sight, preparing for the upcoming Olympics, they may want to wipe off a few mirrors. Perhaps then their paranoid leaders may finally see where the blame for their country's lousy image lies. Despite their burgeoning economy and military might, as long as they continue the oppression of the Tibetan people, China's image will remain that of a third-rate country ruled by thugs.
H. EUBANKS
ST. GEORGE, UTAH
Guns aren't safe
To the editor:
After reading his March 23 diatribe, it is clear to me that Review-Journal columnist Vin Suprynowicz has not yet learned the obvious: the more handguns a country has in circulation, the more handgun deaths that country is going to get -- not less.
The United States has some 200 million handguns in circulation, and the highest handgun death rate (per 100,000 population) of any industrialized nation, with the possible exception of Brazil. Japan has the fewest number of handguns in circulation and the lowest handgun death rate per 100,000.
If all these guns make us safer, we should be the safest nation on earth.
R. LANE
LAS VEGAS
More consuming
To the editor:
Only a year ago, the Washington bright lights were warning that Americans were spending too much. There was too much consumin' going on. We the people were not saving enough.
Today, there is not enough consumin' going on. The Washington bright lights are giving away free money. It is money they don't have. It has to be printed.
Since this is an election year, this round in on the house!
CURTIS F. CLARK
BOULDER CITY
Government contracts
To the editor:
Your March 25 editorial on government contractors is certainly useful, but it omits one of the most important components of effective contracting.
A government contractor is only as good as the government employee (contracting officer, inspector, program supervisor) who oversees the contractor. If the overseer doesn't know the provisions of the contract, doesn't know how to assure compliance with the contract, pays off without knowing the quality or effectiveness of the product or service purchased, you can be sure it will turn out to be a bad deal for the government.
Frankly, the contractor is perfectly willing to do a good job and satisfy the government, but if he finds he can't determine what the government wants because of a poorly written contact and no sensible guidance from the government, don't expect the contractor to carry out both sides of the contractual agreement without some bias toward his side.
So, you're right about the benefits of privatization. There are things that business can do better than government. But by and large, they do so when government knows how to determine compliance before partial or full payment.
It may surprise you, but the Defense Department has far and away the best-written contracts and compliance. But because of so much big money, politics (members of Congress and White House officials) influences department officials to depart from established provisions or policies and essentially ignore the essence or spirit of the law -- and you get lousy contracts.
Herman Gordon
LAS VEGAS
Poetic justice
To the editor:
To Sen. Hillary Clinton and any Republicans who think recent revelations concerning Sen. Barack Obama, Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright might signal the demise of the Obama phenomenon, don't count on it.
Compare it, instead, to the unfathomable success of the man who didn't inhale, the man who dodged not only the draft but also the host of allegations from women seeking to reveal him as the poster boy for marital infidelity. No matter how much mud was thrown at him, it either didn't stick or it blended in.
Even after his actions were shown to be felonious, Senate enablers chose party loyalty over duty and stood beside him.
With respect to supporter loyalty, it appears that Sen. Obama is of the Bill Clinton mold -- don't trouble his devoted followers with facts; they're too busy cheering him to listen.
Poetic justice, Hillary?
Because it becomes more obvious daily that a concentrated focus on Sen. Obama's associations will yield only modest political gains, the focus must now return to where it began and where it has increasingly been shown to belong: his absolute, unquestionable, unambiguous lack of qualifications for the job he seeks. The problem for Sen. Clinton, of course, is that she can't capitalize on that because she's not qualified, either.
To summarize for those too busy to consider the awesome challenges the next president will face: We ain't pickin' no rock star or Tammy Wynette here, 'cause we just might be goin' for broke.
S. Deas
LAS VEGAS
