This Memorial Day brought to you by China
To the editor:
The other day, my wife and I were looking around in a hat store and a cool hat with a USA logo on it caught my eye. Around the same area were hats for the Army, Navy and Marines.
You might ask, "What's the big deal? You can find these types of hats anywhere." Well, the difference, at least to me, was that it was Memorial Day weekend. Buying this hat was a way for me to show my support, not to mention respect, for those who gave their lives for this great country.
However, much to my dismay, I looked at the tag and there were the words, in black and white, "Made in China."
You might ask, "What's the big deal, since almost everything is made in China these days?" Well, that fact alone is an insult to what we as a country are supposed to represent, and that's freedom.
This hat was special, however, because in my opinion it symbolized an insult to every man and woman who lost their life defending this country. After World War II, we were told that communism was evil. We fought a Cold War that suddenly was forgotten after the fall of the Soviet Union. Somehow, Red China was no longer considered part of this equation.
You don't suppose this had anything to do with the fact that the Chinese produce cheap goods? During the Korean War, there were more than 133,000 American casualties, including 33,000 killed in action. There is no way of knowing how many of those casualties came at the hands of the Chinese.
As much as the fact that we have exported and continue to export jobs to Red China sickens me, the total disregard for the many who have made the ultimate sacrifice in all wars, especially the Korean War, should make every American question what our country really is about.
Scott Cohen
Las Vegas
9/11 heroes
To the editor:
In response to your Monday editorial, "Memorial Day":
Many thanks for remembering that small group of guys aboard United Flight 93 who stood and fought aboard that doomed aircraft on 9/11.
When the FBI located and played the cockpit voice recorder, agents heard the bloody fight just outside the cockpit door. I'm glad my son, Mark Bingham, was able to team up with Thomas Burnett Jr., Jeremy Glick and Todd Beamer to make a difference that day.
Alice Hoagland
Los Gatos, Calif.
Public health
To the editor:
After reading yet another letter about this being a free country in which people should be able to smoke (Friday Review-Journal), I feel compelled to ask why this issue is being framed without question as a "rights" or a "free country" issue?
In any modern society, rights become limited or circumscribed by rules or conventions designed to promote the common welfare; for example, not yelling "Fire!" when there isn't a fire in a crowded theater.
More importantly, smoking in public is a public health issue. It has nothing to do with rights or freedom. It has to do with a smoker's very presence while smoking negatively and immediately affects the health of the person next to him or her. How can that behavior be construed as a "free country" concern?
If some parts of Nevada's indoor smoking ban are lifted, will the employees of taverns or bars have a protective shield placed around them while they're working?
Dorothy Howard
Henderson
Parental involvement
To the editor:
Glenn Cook's column in Sunday's Viewpoints section about PTO and PTA fundraising ("A different way to restore school budget cuts") addressed the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss.
It is popular to solely blame teachers and educators for the ill of the current status of education. This is because it is easier to deflect responsibility than accept it. I do not by any means hint that teachers are not important to a child's education, but they are not the only adults responsible. The biggest factor in a child's education is parents.
It would be interesting to review the data of successful schools to that of not-so-successful schools and see if there is any correlation in parental involvement.
Gary Conder
North Las Vegas
Pay, then pay some more
To the editor:
Last week, the Public Utilities Commission voted to grant an electricity rate increase to NV Energy. NV Energy asked for a 5.4 percent hike but was granted a mere 3.4 percent increase (May 24 Review-Journal).
Apparently, NV Energy's logic overwhelmed the PUC's intellect. Try to follow this:
NV Energy needs the increase to pay for a shortfall in revenue brought about by users' energy-saving efforts and the utility's need to pay for more energy-saving programs.
This is where I get lost. If we save energy, we have to pay more for it, and we have to pay more to implement even more energy-saving programs, which will result in even higher costs per kilowatt hour because of the decreased consumption. So, if I have this straight, we're paying NV Energy more so it can implement programs that will cause us to pay still more.
If Dorothy's house fell on the Wicked Witch of the East and no one was around, would it still make a noise?
Ronnie Garner
Henderson
