NCAA part of the problem, not the solution

To the editor:

The events that have unfolded over the past year at Penn State are just one more illustration of why giving unchecked power to a single individual is a bad idea. And how did the NCAA respond? By giving virtually unchecked power to a single man.

It’s a minor miracle NCAA President Mark Emmert didn’t throw out his shoulder with all the reaches he made to involve the organization in this horrifying series of events, in what is clearly a ham-fisted attempt at emphasizing the legitimacy of his organization.

For NCAA officials to hijack the plight of the 10 victims for their own gains is not only shameless, but almost as morally bankrupt a move as Joe Paterno’s. Clearly, the NCAA is part of the problem, not the solution.

James Brooks

Las Vegas

Mass shooting

To the editor:

In response to the Colorado tragedy, let’s lay part of the blame for the huge body count – dead and wounded – at the feet of our gutless Congress. Our senators and representatives won’t stand up to the NRA and ban assault weapons. If the killer had not had an AR-15, we would have had fewer than 70 casualties.

By the way, I am a registered handgun owner.

Joel Rosenfeld

Las Vegas

Defend yourself

To the editor:

As predictable as day and night, liberals are attacking gun ownership as the reason for the Colorado tragedy. Of course, we have all seen how well gun control is working in Mexico.

Mexico does not permit gun ownership. A recent episode of “Border Wars” showed a U.S. Border Patrol agent turning in his gun before going into Mexico because even he was not permitted to have one while assisting his counterparts in Mexico. Because gun ownership is prohibited in Mexico, there are very few shootings in Mexico, right? Just a couple of hundred at a time by crooks with guns.

Keep moving folks, nothing to see here.

To stop mass killings we must be able to defend ourselves. Did anyone in the theater audience have a concealed-carry permit? If so, did he have to leave his weapon in his car because a sign on the theater door said “No guns allowed,” like so many buildings here?

If you don’t want to be a victim, then learn to defend yourself.

M. Cook


Shoot back

To the editor:

What would have been the outcome of the Colorado tragedy if someone in the audience had the ability to shoot back?

There will be a large outcry for more gun control, but that affects only the law-abiding, sane people. When has a criminal or wacko ever worried about laws on paper?

Is there any responsibility linked to the writers, producers and directors of the films and video games that create these cult-like people who don’t understand the consequences of their actions?

Robert Raider


Sixty percent

To the editor:

Sen. Harry Reid has now decided it may be time to reform the filibuster rules in the U.S. Senate (Sunday editorial). I’ve got a better idea. Let’s reform the Senate itself.

The world’s most exclusive deliberative body is rapidly becoming a deliberative joke. These pinheads now can’t even debate a bill unless 60 senators agree to do so. It seems only fair that since it takes a 60 percent vote to pass a bill then it should take a 60 percent vote to elect a senator. They shouldn’t be able to talk about a mandate from the voters unless they really have a mandate.

It’s very possible that if such a constitutional amendment were adopted, the Senate might not even have a quorum in a few years. So be it.

The rest of them could be relieved of their duties (without pay or benefits) and the chamber closed. They could then go back home or stay in D.C. and do what they do best – lobby for big pharma, big banks, big oil, big unions, the NRA, the military-industrial complex, etc.

Would democracy suffer? Possibly, but it’s suffering now.

Terry Cox


No Hoover

To the editor:

There’s a big difference between running a large company successfully and overseeing a national economy. The goal of the first is to make money for one’s investors and oneself. Overseeing a national economy is far more difficult. Success depends upon many factors: the economy at the time one was handed the responsibility for it, the world economy, and the cooperation of those who should be helping instead of obstructing, i.e., Congress.

Herbert Hoover, arguably one of the country’s best businessmen, led us straight into a depression in the 1920s that was far worse than the recession from which we are now recovering. His business acumen did nothing to help the country’s economy.

What we need is not another Hoover running the show, but a Congress willing to work with the president. The president knows what needs to be done: invest in research, infrastructure, education, etc. This will create jobs. Working people will put money back into the economy by buying goods and services and paying taxes. Businesses will grow and hire. The economy will recover. It’s a cycle that economists agree will work. Consumers with money in their pockets are the real job creators, not the wealthy 1 percent.

Our slow economic recovery is not the fault of the president, nor is a businessman in the Oval Office the solution. The solution is removing the obstructionists in Congress by voting wisely in November.

Carolyn Robins

Las Vegas

News Headlines
Local Spotlight
Add Event
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like