To the editor:
In your Friday story “LV man convicted in robbery spree,” the final paragraph said, “In addition to being convicted on nine counts of robbery and weapons charges, (Enrique) Hurtado pleaded guilty to unlawfully being in the country. He was deported twice last year.”
By what criteria does he qualify as being an “LV man”? Surely accurate reporting of his resident status would require one of these alternatives:
— The name of his place of residence prior to his first entering the United States illegally.
— The name of the place to which he was last deported.
— Naming no place of residence, and describing him, correctly, as an “illegal immigrant.”
Graham H. Tye
NORTH LAS VEGAS
In defense of voters
To the editor:
In response to Larry Fahey’s letter of Aug. 14 (“Appoint judges”) regarding District Judge Elizabeth Halverson’s disciplinary hearing, I would like to respectfully disagree.
So voters made a mistake. So what? We fixed it, and we fixed it quickly. Judge Halverson was defeated in last week’s primary election.
Have any of you been so bedazzled by the infinite wisdom and infallibility of the various unelected cliques and factions constantly competing for control of the levers of public power that you’d be willing to trust them with the selection of the judicial branch of government?
I submit that we the people, with help from the Fourth Estate, have a rock-solid track record of successfully utilizing the self-correcting mechanisms built into our political system to weed out those who really don’t belong in public office.
I further submit that allowing a group of a dozen or so people, hand-picked for their wealth, pedigree and political connections, to select judges and then present their choices to us like pearls before swine for an up or down vote is not going to produce a better judiciary. Not by a long shot.
To the editor:
As a volunteer who helped collect signatures for the property tax initiative, I am appalled at the way the unions try to block the people’s right to petition their government.
Before the petition could be circulated, the AFL-CIO brought suit regarding the wording of the initiative. Once their complaints were satisfied, the petition could be circulated. After turning in the petitions, the secretary of state said we had enough signatures, but the teachers union brought suit.
With enough signatures, each county is to verify the legitimacy of those signatures. But the teachers union is saying that you, the citizens, have not signed the petitions correctly. They are acting like schoolyard bullies, trying to push around the good citizens who signed the petition and telling the government of Nevada it is not doing its job right.
All the initiative does is allow the citizens of Nevada the right to vote on it in November, but the bullies don’t want the citizens to do that. I hope the Nevada judiciary will tell these bullies to get out of the government’s business and allow the citizens their right by throwing out this frivolous lawsuit.
To the editor:
In her Monday letter to the editor, Jennifer K. Welch, a Clark County School District teacher, makes the point that it is every Nevada citizen’s civic responsibility to ensure “our” children are educated.
I don’t think society has much to be gained when we fail to adequately provide an education to “our” children, but let’s get one thing straight. These aren’t “my” children. They aren’t “our” children. It should be the responsibility of the parents to decide whether they have the financial ability to raise their children prior to starting a family.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Our society is horribly backward. We reward nonproductive families who birth child after child with welfare, food stamps, tax breaks, public housing and a variety of other benefits.
Those of us who go to work day after day and choose not to have children are rewarded simply with a far higher tax bill in spite of the fact we use far less of our city and state resources.
Enough is enough. It’s time to start making parents take at least some partial financial responsibility for the education of their own children. Reverse all those tax breaks and put that money into public education. Problem solved.