Greenspun’s spin brings down Sun

To the editor:

The Las Vegas Sun is the standard bearer of liberalism in Nevada. Its publisher, Brian Greenspun, is liberalism’s poster child. His complaints are the same old complaints the Democrats always espouse: more money for education, despite the fact the United States spends more on schools than anyone else.

Subscribers to this liberal philosophy support free iPads, free lunches, free day care, free sex education, free English tutoring, free everything for immigrants ad infinitum, and in exchange for what? Teachers in the trenches are still underpaid, while the heads of their unions pull in $300,000 or more, and college administrators rake in up to $400,000 plus benefits, all while test scores show an increasing failure rate.

Mr. Greenspun infers Nevadans will soon be living in the Third World if taxpayers refuse to underwrite every Assembly bill, every illegal immigrant need, every social issue that comes along. He doesn’t seem to understand that if the state cannot afford something, it cannot buy it.

If Mr. Greenspun’s socialistic point of view is so popular, why is it necessary for the Sun to piggyback on the Review-Journal in the first place? Is it because people who believe in his ideology would only read his paper if it was ostensibly free?

Perhaps the Obama Justice Department will give Mr. Greenspun some breathing space. I’m wondering if the Justice Department would be so magnanimous if the roles of the Sun and the Review-Journal were reversed?

RON MOERS

HENDERSON

Sun’s viewpoint needed

To the editor:

I disagree with Matt Jakus’ letter (“Sun’s undoing brought on by son,” Tuesday Review-Journal). We need the Las Vegas Sun to provide those articles from The New York Times and all others who disagree with the Review-Journal’s slant on politics.

The Times’ Maureen Dowd manages to report information I like to read. In Tuesday’s Sun, local gun owner Ron Nelsen posed a sensible and pertinent opinion on the Sun’s editorial pages. Since it related to sensible solutions to gun control, I doubt the Review-Journal would print it. And the Times’ Gail Collins, in her Tuesday commentary, “Where credit is due,” provided an amazing reminder of how women were considered second-class citizens well into latter stages of the 20th century. It’s well worth having such articles as a voice for women — articles the Review-Journal can easily dismiss as not worthy of print.

And realistically, would the Review-Journal have printed Sue Brooks’ letter to the Sun, which stated that gun background checks weren’t a burden? Or Roger Warrick’s letter, noting he feels the burden of his race still being an issue in the good old USA?

Yes, we need dissenting opinions, and the Sun supplies them. I have been a customer of the Review-Journal for 45 years and consider a newspaper at my door to be one of the fast-fading luxuries of living in the 21st century.

Newspapers are harder to access if one is not computer literate. But I still want the Review-Journal and the Sun on my driveway each morning.

DOROTHY JONES

LAS VEGAS