ad-fullscreen

Gibbons’ vetoes set up clear choice

To the editor:

Gov. Jim Gibbons and his 28 vetoes — of which 25 were overturned — did the citizens of Nevada a favor. We the taxpayers are now are benefiting in two ways.

1. With term limits being enforced, we will now be rid of 17 legislators who, given their voting records, were big spenders with a desire to overtax the citizens of Nevada.

2. Those legislators who voted to override the vetoes and are running in 2010 are now very large targets to be removed from office by the voters for their big spending ways during a recession.

Gov. Gibbons has given the voters of Nevada a choice — lower taxes or uncontrolled spending. If we had enough money in the budget to pay $70 million to reopen sparsely used F Street, there is no budget crisis.

Dave Miller

HENDERSON

Educational trauma

To the editor:

Two items caught my attention in Friday’s Review-Journal. One was a story on the squabbles between the UNLV president and the university system chancellor (“Rogers tells Ashley performance failing”). The other was a letter to the editor on the abundance of assistant principals at elementary schools (“Bozo administrators”).

It’s no secret that Nevada’s educational system is in shambles. In the rarefied atmosphere of higher education and six-figure salaries, the readers hear of five lavish parties being thrown in a 10-day period at the home of UNLV President David Ashley. While the taxpayers are forced to make ends meet, we read of the excesses of a broken system.

It will be a breath of fresh air when Mr. Rogers retires, along with a complete overhaul in the educational system, where our tax money is being channeled to administrators instead of our teachers. Also, a more thorough screening and testing process should be a prime requirement for both administrators and teachers.

Geret N. Kritzer

LAS VEGAS

Free speech

To the editor:

I thought it was very interesting that you ran two columns on the Friday commentary page that directly and indirectly dealt with the killing of Dr. George Tiller. Barbara Shelly wrote about the 250 to 300 women a year that sought Dr. Tiller’s services. Nat Hentoff wrote that the First Amendment protected the Bill O’Reillys of the world.

Yes, Mr. O’Reilly is protected, even when he refers to Dr. Tiller as “Killer Tiller.” Yes, Mr. O’Reilly is protected when he calls Dr. Tiller a mass murderer who killed 60,000 infants over the past 30 years. Yes, Mr. O’Reilly is protected, even when he inflates the number of abortions Dr. Tiller performed by about 700 percent.

And yes, Rush Limbaugh and Alan Keyes are protected when they loudly claim that President Obama doesn’t have a legitimate birth certificate that proves he’s a natural born citizen.

But how sad it is that while the First Amendment protects speech, it doesn’t say anything about the speaker being the least bit responsible.

Mr. O’Reilly says he reported only the facts. He seems to forget using terms such as “killer” and “mass murderer.” He seems to forget his gross exaggerations.

Free speech indeed. How sad.

Terry Cox

HENDERSON

section-ads_high_impact_4
TOP NEWS
News Headlines
pos-2 — ads_infeed_1
post-4 — ads_infeed_2
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
Circular
You May Like

You May Like