Firefighters aren’t only ones with job hazards
To the editor:
In response to the Wednesday letter from Charlie Michael, who was against reducing firefighter pay as a means of addressing local budget problems:
I'm about over the firefighter woes. Mr. Michael says firefighters are highly trained. Well, as a nurse, I trained for at least four years.
He says their bodies break down after years on the job. Well, I can say, after 38 years of nursing, my body is breaking down from years of moving and lifting patients, many times dead weight.
And talk about being exposed to smoke, fumes, etc. I am exposed on a daily basis to possibly contagious diseases and often very depressing situations.
It is not just nurses or firefighters who have job hazards. Every job -- construction, taxi driving, security, etc. -- has its cons and risks. One difference, however, is clear: Not everyone gets to look forward to a pension when his body wears out. With the firefighters, these pensions may come close to their working salaries.
Sorry, no sympathy from me.
J. Dodds
LAS VEGAS
Too PC
To the editor:
Maj. Nidal Hasan was guilty of treason before he opened fire and killed 12 fellow soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood.
The recently released, delayed report on the issue should have listed political correctness as his accomplice.
Instead, we are still covering up the reason this traitor was allowed to stay in the service. We are being defeated from within. Military intelligence must have noticed his blatant treasonous behavior because it was reported by alert persons who were probably labeled bigots.
If you can't be secure in the military, America is lost.
FRANK PERNA
LAS VEGAS
Not safe
To the editor:
This administration is treating Islamic terrorism with the demeanor and language one would expect in response to convenience store robberies.
Officials avoid the words "war on terror." The Fort Hood shootings and the underwear bomber bust were carried out by "isolated extremists." Nothing these extremists can do could interrupt Hawaiian and ski vacations.
Members of this administration are disconnected and detached on the matter of our security. They feel it is more important to criminalize CIA agents and Navy SEALs.
This attitude is contaminating the security system by eroding the focus and intensity needed to do a good job. This is the mentality that results in gate crashers at the White House. How can this country be safe with this performance?
Janet Napolitano is our Homeland Security secretary. What are her qualifications for this job?
She's the one who believes there are no terrorist attacks -- they are "man made disasters." She feels we should be concerned about our returning military personnel; that they could turn into terrorists.
How about her comment: "The system worked"?
Our president treats the responsibility for our nation's security with such irreverence and disdain that he believes we can be safe by just turning it over to the village idiot.
JACK LOURO
LAS VEGAS
Radical idea
To the editor:
I really enjoy reading the Review-Journal's letters to the editor. Some I agree with (a lot) and some I don't agree with (a lot). But the ones I don't agree with are examples of why this is a great country.
As a veteran of 30 years in our foreign service, with 15 of them spent living and working abroad, I know from first-hand experience this is the best country in the world, warts and all.
How do we get rid of the warts? First, read David Stevenson's letter on terrorism, published Jan 6. Second, vote out those fools in Washington who care only for the perks and power of their office and enriching themselves and their contributors. Vote in honest people who will work for the good of all of us, not for those who will vote to keep them in office, or the party princes, the power brokers and their puppets.
Radical idea, huh?
ALAN KASHARE
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Cold conspiracy
To the editor:
There has been a recent state Health Department directive mandating that all doctors must have a refrigerator in their office less than 10 years old. This does not affect my office -- after almost 24 years of use, we ourselves realized we needed a refrigerator, and recently purchased a new one.
But I'm very skeptical, even now critical, about the reason behind this new order. Let's speculate a scenario:
We have experienced an economic recession. Discretionary money is limited. At such times, big-ticket appliances such as refrigerators are not a high priority and are not going to be purchased in any significant number.
What I am suggesting is just a bit of speculation to consider.
Thus, appliance dealers and/or manufacturers somehow "convince" some bureaucrats or politicians that medical offices "should have" refrigerators that are less than 10 year old, even if their older one is functioning perfectly. There are about 4,000 physicians in Nevada. Say perhaps 10 percent have an appliance older that 10 years. Suddenly, more than 400 new refrigerators must be purchased.
What a "boost" to the economy. The politicians dislocate their collective shoulders patting themselves on the back for forcing this boondoggle, the vendors go happily chuckling to the bank, and the doctors, (whose reimbursements by other bureaucrats are being reduced systematically) get another kick in the pants.
Lastly, this puts the strain on the physicians to see more patients and devote less time to each, and patients get a secondary kick you know where.
LEE BERNSTEIN, M.D.
LAS VEGAS
