Let’s again look up to the stars
To the editor:
It was 1968, 41 years ago. Millions of young, idealistic moviegoers sat spellbound before Stanley Kubrick's magnificent picture, "2001: A Space Odyssey." Because of the splendid American effort that decade, few of us ever doubted that space travel was within our immediate horizon, that in a few years -- definitely in our lifetime -- we would follow our astronauts, if not to the stars themselves, at least to our neighbors. Perhaps to Mars, possibly to Jupiter itself but certainly to the moon.
The very next year on July 20, 1969, a beautifully fashioned sentient piece of the Earth aimed itself perfectly and gently touched another heavenly body, completely removing any of our remaining doubt.
But we were naïve because we were young, and because we didn't realize that our space program was fathered by fear of our military rivals, the Soviets, who terrified us with their successful Sputnik launch in 1957.
So, when the Eagle landed on the moon we had little to fear from the Soviets -- at least in space. We had won that particular battle, you see. There was suddenly very little interest in the cosmos. Earth's great beginning, as a new citizen of a much larger community, was aborted by those who held the reins of power, and the greatest possible adventure began to bore the nation. Humanity, awed by the heavens and momentarily scared and sobered by its own potential, took to the strong drink of superstition again and resumed its intoxication.
Of course, this is not just a national disgrace, it's a planetary disgrace.
It's now July, 2009. Four long decades after the moon landing. Yet we are regressing to something that resembles something medieval and dark. We can only hope that one day we will sober up again and look up to our neighbors and the stars behind them.
JAMES PAPPAS
LAS VEGAS
Speaking out
To the editor:
So President Barack Obama wants lawmakers to finalize a complete overhaul of the best health care system in the world by August. What is so special about August?
The current session of Congress ends in August and he wants a law before the lawmakers return home because "once they get home there will be forces influencing them."
Forces? Doesn't he mean citizens exercising their right to have their feelings heard? I guess President Obama doesn't want you and me to be heard.
That's change you can keep.
Michael Zbiegien
HENDERSON
Income disparity
To the editor:
Where's the French bread when you need it? There is so much baloney in the reasoning of your two recent editorials ("Eat the rich" and "two incomes") they should be sold at Subway instead of from the pulpit of an editorial page in a major newspaper.
Stripped of pomp, your editorials basically argue there is something unjust about the top 5 percent of wage earners in our country paying 60 percent of the income tax. As this says nothing about income disparity, and, since the top 5 percent of wage earners hold 60 percent of the wealth in our country, your objection is against ... what? Fairness?
Might I recommend you consider instead of a wages and income tax correlation, a correlation mapping income levels with income earned. The Department of Labor uses such a correlation, and calls it, in honor of the inventor, the Gini coefficient.
In a perfectly fair system, we would expect the correlation to be 0 -- the top 1 percent owns 1 percent of the income, the top 2 percent owns 2 percent of the income, etc. In a perfectly unfair system, we would expect the correlation to be 1 -- the top 1 percent owns 100 percent of the income. For most countries, the Gini usually falls between 0.200 and 0.450. Countries with a Gini greater than 0.500 have an income disparity problem.
If your editorials are correct, we should see a falling off in the Gini reflecting an income disparity disfavoring those in the upper income groups. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor and its Gini fails to confirm your thesis.
There has been an upward and not a downward Gini trend from 1967 to 2001. At our current level of income distribution, we are on course to be like Mexico.
While the rich you console in your editorials are getting richer, you may want to consider down the road an editorial requesting a bail-out from our government so the rest of us can keep our indoor plumbing.
Tom Climo
LAS VEGAS
Close to fraud
To the editor:
In response to your recent story about firefighters manipulating their pay in order to pad their pensions:
The union (firefighters) can call it "in the contract," "spiking" or "we deserve it." But it is stealing, dishonesty and very close to fraud.
Patrick Young
LAS VEGAS
