To the editor:
In his letter of May 30, Geret Kritzler complains that his sighting of eight motorcycle cops operating a speed trap indicates there is no shortage of police.
Recently, my son-in-law had his vehicle destroyed by a driver who ran a stop sign. He is undergoing physical therapy and possibly will have surgery as a result of the driver’s disregard for a stop sign.
Shortly afterward, our 22-year-old son had his car totaled by a driver who blatantly ran a red light. He has also been rear-ended two times as he was waiting to make a right turn on red. He has a spotless driving record. The last accident resulted in the at-fault party’s insurance paying $16,000 for his car, plus rental car expenses. Fortunately, there were no injuries, due largely due to air bags.
Last Friday, my son-in-law was bringing our 2-year-old granddaughter to visit when he was nearly hit, on her side, by a driver who blatantly ran a red light. He sped up in time to avoid the accident, but the driver hit the car behind him, He stopped, and both occupants smelled of alcohol.
I cannot recall the last time I was waiting for a stop light at a busy intersection to change when no one ran the resulting red light. That is no exaggeration.
I do not advocate tax increases – or, for that matter, more cops. What I want to see is more traffic light enforcement.
This is a gold mine for any government that will actively pursue it. I believe the revenue raised from enforcing red lights will pay the salaries of the police officers doing the enforcement, until we reach the point where the red light runners realize it is not worth the risk.
It is time for all of our police agencies to get serious about this problem. Too many innocent people have died because of red-light runners.
They know best
To the editor:
Lord, help us. Just when you think that zany bunch on the far left can’t get any wackier, they go and outdo themselves.
Now New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to tell the people of that city how large the soft drinks they purchase can be. First Nancy Pelosi and Happy Meals, now Mr. Bloomberg and Big Gulps.
Help! The Nanny State is trying to take away everything I like.
Frank W. Thompson
For the kids?
To the editor:
I am a middle school counselor and have been with the Clark County School District for 21 years. My evaluations have always been above average and I have never been disciplined for any reason. My students love me, and I am their advocate. I help them with personal, academic and emotional concerns.
I have had to do four suicide protocols in the past couple of months for students struggling with depression. These students had me to turn to when they had no one else. I would hate to think what may have happened to them without the intervention.
I was just told by my principal that due to the budget I was going to be surplused. He would rather lose a counselor than a teacher.
The superintendent told all principals they had the right to choose at their site who to let go. I may not have a counseling job for this coming school year. A lot of principals let counselors go.
I was not one of the employees in the district to benefit from the arbitrator’s decision awarding pay raises, as I have been topped out on the pay scale for many years now.
I am upset about possibly not having a job to go to next year, but I am even more concerned for students across the district who have lost the connection to someone they have known and trusted with their problems. They will split up my caseload of 500 students among the remaining two counselors who already have their own large caseloads.
We are even gaining students for the upcoming year.
The superintendent talks about kids being ready for exit and what is in the best interest of kids – and yet he gave the go-ahead to do away with counseling positions. Some of these kids are struggling with immediate concerns, and without a trusted person in which to confide would not even make it through a school year, let alone to finish high school. How can this be in the best interest of kids?
I have no recourse for being let go, as it seems district officials can let go anyone they choose without any reasons or accountability.
They always come up with the same line, that “it is in the best interest of the kids.” That simply is not true.
To the editor:
So the president’s visit to Las Vegas today is somehow deemed “official.” Who makes the “official” call?
Many of us would consider “official” as something of genuine importance, such as “conducting the official business of the office of the president of the United States.” But this visit to Las Vegas is definitely not official government business. It is a campaign visit and nothing more.
It will, however, officially cost the U.S. (as in “us”) several million hard-earned tax dollars that are much needed elsewhere.
Juli M. Moore