To the editor:
Once again, the Review-Journal has shown its inability to see beyond the end of its nose. Monday’s editorial rant against Paul Ehrlich and his “failed” doomsday predictions shows just how shallow the thinking ability of the Review-Journal’s editors is.
Yes, Mr. Ehrlich’s predictions have not come true — and, yes, technology has helped prove him wrong. But has the Review-Journal ever considered that Mr. Ehrlich’s predictions might have led to the technology being developed to solve these problems?
If Mr. Ehrlich hadn’t written “The Population Bomb” in 1968, would the technology to increase crop yields ever have been developed? Would millions of people all over the world have made the decision to limit the size of their families? Would China have restricted Chinese families to two children per family?
If Mr. Ehrlich had not predicted “smog disasters,” would Congress have forced car manufacturers to reduce emissions? If he hadn’t predicted shortages of key materials, would technology have developed new ones?
You will note a pattern here. Before you can solve a problem, you have to identify it as a problem. And so the more relevant question should be: Will UNLV provide a similarly receptive forum to more speakers who have the foresight of Mr. Ehrlich?
But I agree with the Review-Journal on one point: No one should ever seek to silence Mr. Ehrlich.
To the editor:
President Obama announces a freeze on spending to help reduce the federal deficit.
Will it include using repaid TARP money to help pay off the national debt? I doubt it. Will it include a reduction in pay for his many six-figure salaried czars? I doubt it. Will it encourage Congress to reduce their pay and that of every bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.? I doubt it.
Will it include a reduction in the number of campaign trips and vacation trips made by President Obama and his family using Air Force One? I doubt it. Will it curtail the number of weekend trips made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi using military aircraft and ground transportation? I doubt it.
Will it include the paring down of the number of paid aides and advisers to Congress and other Washington politicians? I doubt it. Will it include eliminating special funding for special interest groups (pork)? I doubt it.
There is enough wasteful “good old boy” spending in Washington that could, and should, considerably contribute to deficit reduction. But I doubt that this, too, would come to pass.
Robert S. TobiAs
Jobs and jobs
To the editor:
After 12 months of health care, bailouts and stimulus money, the administration is finally getting around to job creation. If the current whiz kids had any idea of how the economy works, this would have been the first task instead of the last of all the self-serving spending.
Why did people lose their homes? No job. Why did people stop spending? No job. Why did people stop investing? No job. Why did people not have health care? No job.
What would seem to be the most important task for the administration? Jobs!
I mean real jobs for real people who represent the working class. Not union jobs that will be pointed only to a very small portion of the working class.
What happened to all of the “shovel ready” jobs touted in the early days of the “new hope” administration? I will be willing to bet the jobs initiative presented by the Obama administration will address union-based jobs first (more payback for the election support) and will not help to get the majority, who are out of work, back to providing a home and health care and retirement prospects for them and their families.
I hope we don’t have to wait 12 more months.
Amnesty the answer
To the editor:
Every time I read an article like the one depicting the desperate situation of the undocumented immigrant, I can’t help but cringe (“Dialysis bills keep rising,” Monday Review-Journal).
Jose Diaz Ruiz labored for years in the Idaho potato fields. It is a back-breaking job, braving the harsh elements and pesticides with barely livable housing and wages. He was not a lazy bum or a drug addict. Nor is his condition a result of self-inflicted overindulgence.
He is a farmer, dignified and in need of life-saving treatments.
It is mind-boggling to imagine that neither University Medical Center nor our county commissioners can figure out ways to secure cost-effective ways to deliver these procedures to the indigent illegals in need of chronic care dialysis outside of the emergency room. Costs are driven up by forcing them to wait for treatment until their condition is so weak and deteriorated that they need not only dialysis but to be admitted for inpatient care. This sounds barbaric and stupid.
The plight of these unfortunate individuals will be used to fuel anti-immigrant hate and motivate extreme right-wing groups and politicians to derail and discourage any possibility of enacting legislation for immigration reform.
Legalization will resolve the situation of uninsured immigrants. They will be able to pay for medical insurance, contribute into their Social Security and Medicare and we would not have to see their misery displayed in front-page headlines.