To the editor:
Saturday night’s boxing match between Timothy Bradley and Manny Pacquiao resulted in one of the worst decisions I have ever witnessed. I was an amateur and professional boxer and won a middleweight championship. I am 81 years old and have been involved with the fight game since my fight career ended. The Nevada Athletic Commission needs to address the qualifications of judges who judge prize fights. From my scorecard tally, I had Mr. Pacquiao winning every round. Although two rounds were comparatively close, Mr. Pacquiao still had enough edge to score in his favor.
I know that this outcome will create much controversy, but what really is at stake are fans who support boxing – many traveling from outside Las Vegas and paying huge prices to watch corrupted judging.
Mr. Bradley remarked at the end of the fight, before the decision was announced, that he knew he had lost but tried to win very hard. Mr. Bradley gave a remarkable performance, but he lacked the savvy, polish and experience to out-punch Mr. Pacquiao.
Boxing is damaged when horrible decisions are made through bad judging. I would hope Mr. Pacquiao, in a rematch, would choose another venue.
To the editor:
Columnist Jane Ann Morrison thinks lobbyist Harvey Whittemore should be given leniency because the laws under which he was operating in 2007 were different than today’s laws (“Treatment of Whittemore a bit heavy-handed,” Saturday Review-Journal). But that’s not the way the law works.
And for some convoluted reason, Ms. Morrison goes on to state that this won’t have an effect on Sen. Harry Reid, apparently her favorite politician.
Whether Mr. Whittemore is guilty or innocent clouds the overall issue: Is it in the public’s interest to keep the professional lobbying system?
If John Q. Public would “lobby” a police officer to let him off on a speeding ticket by taking the officer out to breakfast, or offering him some other shady financial inducement, it would be called bribery. Such similar “lobbying” prevents politicians from doing their jobs and clouds their judgment, usually in the favor of whoever the lobbyist is representing.
Lobbying a representative should be the responsibility of the individual citizen.
To the editor:
I had to chuckle at Patti Tripp’s Saturday letter regarding the Republicans’ response to another piece of victimhood legislation crafted by the Democrats to create a fervor over gender pay. Well, I’ve got my own complaints.
When I was a Marine, the male Marines had a much more difficult physical fitness test than women – some would consider it twice as difficult. The male Marines were required to run three miles as part of the test, while females were required to run only 1½ miles – and the time limit for men was shorter. The other two portions of the test were tilted as well, with sit-up and pull-up requirements being much more stringent for males – and females got to substitute a flexed-arm hang for pull-ups.
I never complained about it because, the truth is, I rarely met a woman who could actually pass the male physical fitness test and score well. In 20 years, I would say I met only one who could. And at the end of the day, those same females who were my rank still received the same pay I did.
We can scream victimhood all our lives, but there will never be equality when one gender is stronger, faster and has more endurance than the other. I don’t claim superiority over the other gender. It’s just a fact. Women can do some things better than men. That’s a fact, and I think pretty much every man acknowledges that. It’s all part of the blame game.
The “equal pay” legislation was created to generate responses like Ms. Tripp’s. Another piece of the shell game, creating a red herring to distract a specific core of voters away from what should be their main focus: jobs, the economy and reckless government spending, which this administration wants specific voters to forget about.
Come election time, remember: It’s all about me. Isn’t it? Forget about the country, just worry about how I’m going to benefit. Right? That’s what this administration wants you to think.
Oh, and I never mentioned the 26-mile marches with full combat gear, did I?
Yep, equal pay.
North Las Vegas
To the editor:
I read that building permits for new homes were up slightly, around 50 percent of existing homes are “underwater” and there is a continued debate about the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s plan to spend billions on a pipeline from rural Nevada. Wouldn’t it make sense to place a moratorium on permits for new home construction?
Most construction workers have long since left the area or found other work, so the impact on our employment would be minimal. Without the supply of new homes, the demand for existing homes would help increase the value of our homes. Higher home values mean increased property tax revenue, much of which goes directly to the public schools.
Most importantly, it would reduce the demand on our water resources before we suck the last drop of water from Lake Mead.
Just a thought.