To the editor:
I see that numerous people are weighing in on John L. Smith’s column about gun control (“Nevada at crossroads on gun buyer background checks,” Jan. 31 Review-Journal). His follow-up column is packed with comments by flag-waving patriots again wrapping themselves in the Constitution (“Readers react strongly to expanded background checks,” Feb. 7 Review-Journal).
May I point out that the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago by men who were neither clairvoyant nor gods? I’m sure they never envisioned that the document they authored would not change with the times. After all, when the Constitution was signed, women did not have the right to vote and slavery was legal. They also did not have access to the weapons or ammunition we have now.
I don’t feel any safer that more people are packing a gun. Yes, I know I could be killed or injured in other ways, but I would rather take my chances outrunning an assailant without a gun pointed at me.
My husband is a retired police officer. We still have guns, but because we had children and now grandchildren, his weapons are responsibly secured. So before you profess to know what the majority of Nevadans want, maybe you should ask around. And one more thing, the Constitution also gives Mr. Smith and people like me the right to express our opinion without being threatened by someone claiming to be a patriot.
To the editor:
Regarding the article on the Bureau of Land Management (“Comment period extended on BLM management plan,” Feb. 5 Review-Journal), I realize it would be foolish requesting that the Review-Journal quit giving needless attention to the flag-waving, self-promoting Cliven Bundy. But could the newspaper please stop referring to him as “embattled”?
I can’t understand how someone who refuses to pay grazing fees for decades (he owes more than $1 million) is “embattled.” He sounds more like a welfare cheat to me.
To the editor:
Regarding the article about the judge’s decision on the downtown soccer stadium (“Subsidy foes triumph in court,” Feb. 7 Review-Journal), I have the utmost regard for Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman. Forty years ago she founded the nonprofit, nonsectarian The Meadows School – now pre-K through high school — which arguably offers the best educational experience in the state.
The Meadows School has a rigorous curriculum and graduates students who consistently gain admission to the finest universities in the country. Yes, she had help, but the idea and driving force was all her own.
As a first-term mayor, Mrs. Goodman quickly mastered city, county and state politics, and gained a reputation as a competent administrator and a cheerleader for Las Vegas and Southern Nevada. And unlike other once-rising Nevada political figures (think Jim Gibbons and John Ensign), Mayor Goodman has avoided all allegations of scandal.
So it saddened me to learn that the mayor had embraced a financially risky project for a soccer stadium, which the majority of Las Vegans didn’t appear to want and which placed taxpayers on the hook for $56 million, while giving away a valuable parcel of downtown land and possibly encumbering Clark County to build a 1,200-space parking garage.
Worst of all, had the soccer venture panned out and become a financial success, the profits would have mainly gone to Cordish Cos. and Findlay Sports &Entertainment. If it had flopped, taxpayers would have been on the hook. It sounds a bit like our monorail.
The mayor’s misplaced enthusiasm, or as some critics suggest her hubris, might cost her the election this June. But now there is a graceful way out, since Major League Soccer on Thursday decided against awarding Las Vegas a franchise. So everything becomes moot.
By June, the anger will have subsided and Mayor Goodman will have a good chance to beat challenger and Councilman Stavros Anthony. If the pot had continued to boil for the next few months, we may have had to consider saying, “Mayor Anthony.”