weather icon Clear

Don’t lump Trump in with abusers

I couldn’t agree more with Paul Harasim’s Tuesday column, “Contempt for women can pay off for men.” When I was young and stupid, I married a man who was physically abusive. There is no greater humiliation than to be physically struck, beaten and abused by the one who swore he loved you and would cherish you.

I left that situation and swore never to suffer a recurrence.

Like Mr. Harasim I also am at a loss as to why some men who physically abuse women are highly venerated. I won’t spend a single dime to further the lifestyle of any such man.

But to lump into that morass a man who called women names simply does not compare. Donald Trump does a lot of things wrong, but I’ve never heard allegations that he physically abused women or had an affair while married.

For such a fine article, Mr. Harasim let his politics show through by including Mr. Trump in this infamous list of cowards. Name calling never, ever equals hitting a woman so hard she hits “every wall in the apartment.”

Rhonda Powell


Here illegally

In Saturday’s Review-Journal, I read that Harry Reid commented on the statement made by Donald Trump about DREAMer Astrid Silva (“Reid calls on Nevada congressional delegation to stand up for Astrid Silva”).

Yes we are a country of immigrants. But we cannot allow anybody to just walk into the United States illegally. There are millions and millions of people seeking to enter this country as immigrants, and many have to wait for years. Just like me. As an immigrant, I applied and waited for nine years to get the proper papers to enter this country.

So my question to Astrid Silva: What gives you the right to stay in this country? Whether it was her choice or not, she entered this country illegally.

I agree with Mr. Trump’s plan to first deport these people and then let them re-enter the United States properly.

Maybe people such as Ms. Silva should be given priority because they already have established some kind of history here.

Miguel Reyes-Cuerva


Correct response

In response to Larry McGrorty’s Tuesday letter to the Review-Journal, “Mercury panic reveals a nation of wimps”:

I have personally cleaned up more than 100 mercury spills, 26 of which were in schools. The Clark County School District did an excellent job in the handling of the spill at Johnson Junior High School. The size of the school and number of students and faculty are the main reason that it took so long to clear personnel.

To do the clearance process properly, you have to examine every shoe, pocket, backpack and any other item possibly contaminated. Keeping everyone on-site until cleared is a best practice until the situation can be evaluated. Getting detection equipment to the scene requires time. Such equipment is very expensive to purchase and maintain. It is not uncommon to have fewer than two or three units in a state.

While a large percentage of adults admit to playing with mercury as a child, most of them got the mercury from a broken fever thermometer that contained approximately 1 gram of the substance. Comparing the amount of mercury in a thermometer to the quarter cup found in the school is like comparing a “lady finger firecracker” to a stick of dynamite.

We all did things in our youth that were stupid and dangerous. But we should not blame the school district for doing things right in this day and age when there is much more knowledge about hazardous substances.

Lyle McKenzie

North Las Vegas

Parade of deplorables

Clearly it isn’t enough that readers are subjected to a daily barrage of the insulting editorial cartoons by Michael Ramirez, Lisa Benson, Chip Bok and the like. Now you want to throw in the deranged writings of Wayne Allyn Root as further proof that you’ve lost your way.

Here’s a news flash for the editorial board: The parade is going down another street. Stop waving your arms and shouting, “Over here!”

Michael Henderson

Las Vegas

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
LETTER: Constitution doesn’t prohibit a partisan impeachment

If the Founding Fathers had intended that impeachment proceed only in “extreme bipartisan cases,” they would have included a provision specifying a threshold higher than a simple majority for the vote in the House.

LETTER: Impeachment editorial was right on target

The current proceedings are indeed an unprecedented attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election.