LETTERS: New airline policy inviting danger

To the editor:

I just received notice from the airline that I fly frequently that I and my fellow passengers will be permitted to bury our eyes and ears in our handheld devices from the time we buckle ourselves into our seats to the time we touch down at our destination.

It’s my understanding that the most dangerous times on a flight are while taxiing, upon takeoff and climb, and upon descent and landing. I can just see an emergency occurring and one of the flight attendants asking the passenger sitting next to the emergency exit door to open it, and their response being, “As soon as I finish this game of ‘Angry Birds’”

With their eyes focused on their little screens and their earbuds in place, we will all be in danger.



Exotic animals

To the editor:

John Smith’s Oct. 16 column asks why animal activists have not spoken out about the exotic animal ownership issue in Nevada (“No outcry in Nevada when big cats attack”). They have, Mr. Smith, time and time again.

In Pahrump, activists attended and spoke out at meetings regarding permitting Mike Casey and Karl Mitchell to continue their egregious exploitation of exotic animals. Activists have written and spoken out against private ownership of dangerous animals throughout our community and have worked on laws to ban this practice. More recently, a bill was introduced at the legislative sessions. It didn’t pass.

Most activists do not practice selective compassion when it comes to animal exploitation. However, we need the cooperation of the entire community, all our media outlets and our elected officials. This is not a problem that will be solved by a small group of activists. It’s everyone’s problem — and responsibility — to resolve.

The question that begs to be asked: Where is everyone else? Those who attend the various entertainment venues that utilize animals are contributing to the ongoing problem. The establishments that permit this type of entertainment contribute to the problem. The media’s refusal to publicize information about how animals are treated behind the scenes is also an issue, with the exception of outlets that have worked with activists.

Mr. Smith is correct in that we do have a problem with private ownership of exotic animals in Nevada, and we’re one of the few states that still allow this. However, this is not a problem that should be left solely up to activists to address, nor should we exclude the entertainment industry from any laws prohibiting exotic animal ownership. It seems that whenever a problem has occurred on the Strip, it was followed by damage control to minimize the bad publicity.

If our community is concerned about private ownership of exotics, as it should be, then we need to step up to the plate and work with activists.



Cook and Sherm

To the editor:

I must take a small exception with Randall Buie’s letter (“Republican hypocrisy,” Friday Review-Journal). Mr. Buie cited the Review-Journal’s Glenn Cook and Sherman Frederick as columnists who go off on tirades that fly in the face of Mr. Buie’s critical thinking.

As an unapologetic liberal, I find Glenn Cook’s columns to be very well researched and thought out, to the point that they are always hard to argue against. Mr. Cook is the Review-Journal’s version of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. I mean that wholeheartedly.

As for Mr. Frederick, well, he has attained the equivalent of tenure at the Review-Journal, and he is allowed to write about anything he wants. I never take him seriously, and I just sit back and allow him to embarrass himself. My best advice for a Sherm Frederick column is to read it aloud at night to a small child who may have trouble falling asleep. The child will nod off before you are done.



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

You May Like