My compliments to the Review-Journal on the headline for Letters to the Editor (“Clinton the only solution in 2016”), which was right below the Oscars-presidential candidates cartoon on March 1. Both were amusing, one with a basis in reality. But it’s certainly not amusing that a rational solution may not be in the cards for America.
From the looks of things, we may end up with either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as president. How has it come to this? These two are the best we can offer up? With ad hominem discourse so in vogue, I guess I’m being exceptionally polite in saying our choices come down to voting for the carnival barker or holding our nose and embracing a skunk.
Both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton wallow in moral and ethical relativism. So here’s a better headline: “None of the above the only solution for 2016.” This entire election year would be best described as cartoonish, if it weren’t so incredibly sad for the country.
After much time to reflect on the Feb. 23 Nevada Republican caucus, I remain disappointed, frustrated and upset. My wife and I arrived at our caucus site, Liberty High School, at 5:10 p.m. We stood in line for an hour to get to the door, and once inside, we were greeted by a confusing reception.
Signing in for our precinct, we were handed two ballots each and told to go to a table in the back of the room. On each of many unoccupied tables were manila envelopes, which after many inquiries we learned were for election of delegates. Looking for what to do with our ballots (we gave back two of the four), we were directed to a group of tables where people wearing Donald Trump T-shirts were collecting the ballots and placing them in manila envelopes. What happened to our ballots from that point is anyone’s guess.
There was absolutely no caucusing of any sort; our discussions about the candidates were limited to those near us as we waited in line to get in. The whole event was nothing more than an extremely low-tech primary that took far longer than it should have, and left us wondering if our votes were actually counted. When the Nevada Republican Party again contacts us for contributions, our answer will be, “Only when a real primary is conducted, with actual voting machines.”
I am not a legal or environmental expert, but I am concerned by the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan. I am also confused as to why the Review-Journal’s editorial on this issue would allege that this plan is absolutely detrimental to states’ energy sectors (“Balance of power,” Feb. 22).
This is obviously not true for Nevada, where clean energy just makes sense. Studies have proven time and time again that clean energy effectively competes with fossil fuel power from a cost perspective. From what I’ve read on the Clean Power Plan, states would be allowed to create their own energy policy for reducing carbon pollution, while limiting the financial burdens on the energy industry — a far cry from the tyrannical restructuring that the editorial proclaimed.
It is also my understanding that the Supreme Court previously ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency could regulate carbon pollution. I am concerned that the conservative justices of the court do not realize how damaging this stay may be to our country’s credibility. If we don’t curb our carbon pollution in a short period of time, we may not have the ability to stave off the worst aspects of climate change, where the science is very clear.
I hope our state ignores the stay, ignores the recent rogue filings by our fossil fuel industry-supported attorney general, and continues to create its own compliance plan. Our children’s future depends on it.