Incumbents inherently incapable of change
To the editor:
The only thing we need to change is change itself. Change, similar to modification, is different, but not necessarily an improvement.
I like the way my mail is delivered with regularity; don't change it. I like the way the phone company connects me correctly when I dial; don't change it. I like when trash is collected on scheduled days; don't change it. I like when direct deposit paychecks are in the bank as scheduled; don't change it. I like having an abundant choice of commodities available when I shop; don't change it. I like being able to fuel my vehicle virtually anywhere I travel; don't change it. I like driving on roads on which other drivers courteously follow traffic laws, don't change it. I like the feeling of security provided by our law enforcement, first responder, and military personnel; don't change it.
If there is to be meaningful change, the voting public needs to continually vote out the career politicians who have become so ingrained in their own self-worth that they lose sight of the reason and function of the position in which they serve.
Instead, vote in replacements who might get it right. Therein is the value of change.
Robert S. Tobias
LAS VEGAS
Lesser men
To the editor:
Both Democrats and Republicans take heed.
Democrats: Ask yourselves why there are multiple lawsuits in various states to keep Ralph Nader off November's presidential ballot (this is strictly a Democratic Party push).
Republicans: Ask yourselves how Sen. John McCain, 70-plus years of age, can run for the presidency while all federal employees are forced to retire at age 65.
Note also that Sens. Barack Obama and McCain both hail from a Congress that has failed in its sworn duty to check the authority of the emperor's imperialist executive branch. Failure to impeach this administration will not bode well in the eyes of the international community.
Compared to Mr. Nader and Rep. Ron Paul, Sens. Obama and John McCain could be considered "lesser men."
Sal Ayoob
LAS VEGAS
Immigration spin
To the editor:
Your recent poll and accompanying story on immigration had some seriously flawed and dangerous responses, mostly from those you would expect. Namely, Andres Ramirez, vice president of Hispanic programs at a Washington, D.C., Democratic think tank. Of all who appear to advocate illegal immigration. Mr. Ramirez seems to be the worst ("Nevadans want to end illegal residency," Aug. 25 Review-Journal).
Mr. Ramirez says there is a "misunderstanding about the role that immigrants play in America." How convenient that he left out the world "illegal," a word that changes the meaning and logic for his entire premise.
Assemblyman Ty Cobb, R-Reno, who is against illegal immigration, stated, "We want to allow people in who do it the right way, through a regimented and legal process." Mr. Ramirez says that asking people whether they support efforts to stop illegal immigration is a "loaded question." Kindly tell me what is "loaded" about that?
He goes on to say that nearly three-quarters of Hispanics say illegal immigrants perform jobs others won't take. This has also been proved statistically false, and is a myth pushed by advocates of illegal immigration. Mr. Ramirez himself says, "Of course no one wants people to be coming here illegally."
"Many of the jobs we are losing are not due to undocumented immigrants; they're a result of the globalized market." Does not the "globalized market" have plenty of carpenters, chicken pluckers, cement workers, tile setters and other trades ready and able to work in their own countries?
Saving the best for last, Mr. Ramirez's opinion is that, "In a moment where the average American is suffering in this economic downturn, people are always looking for a cause to point to." Well, he finally got something right. There is a cause, illegal immigration, and it is a drag on our economy, unemployment, hospitals, schools, police, border patrol, social services, etc. It must be stopped.
Mr. Cobb is on the right road, and Mr. Ramirez advocates anarchy.
BILL FITZGERALD
LAS VEGAS
Mob museum
To the editor:
Wouldn't one think we have enough evil souls amongst us now without Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman wanting us to pay tribute to the "evil ones" (who are dead, no less) with his intended mob museum project ("Park's closing forces homeless out," Aug. 21 Review-Journal)?
I can't grasp the insanity of this.
Stop for a minute and realize what evil these mobsters performed -- and now Mayor Goodman wants people to glorify them. If that's not bad enough, he'd rather spend millions on this museum than help the needy.
He wants this museum only so he can continue on his super ego trip. I'm sure his name and picture will be hanging in there somewhere.
I demand our "most compassionate mayor" use this money for the homeless.
However, we already know where Mayor Goodman's heart is, but just in case, I'll make the first bet ...
CAROL BRADLEY
LAS VEGAS
