Obama’s diplomacy far from appeasement

To the editor:

Regarding Louis Frederick's Wednesday letter ("Obama needs to try on new shoes"): One thing seems fairly clear, and that is that John McCain supporters would prefer he run against Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama in November's presidential election.

The "swift-boating" campaign against Sen. Obama --his religion, his church, the question of his loyalty to America -- apparently has many facets, the most recent being the accusation, as expressed in Mr. Frederick's letter, that terrorists would "benefit" from dialogue with a weak U.S. president.

This sentiment was enhanced by President Bush's thinly veiled reference to Sen. Obama's willingness to have a dialogue with enemies of the United States which -- according to Bush -- would be similar to Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement" and failure with Adolf Hitler.

This kind of thinking is unfortunately shallow.

Turn, rather, to President Teddy Roosevelt, who said most pointedly years ago: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Enemies of the United States are familiar by now with the "big stick" part of the equation. Perhaps it is time for change in America from "Axis of Evil" saber-rattling rhetoric to speaking softly. Resorting to use of the big stick, as we have seen in Vietnam and Iraq, is both costly and destructive, with collateral damage that is almost immeasurable.

Mr. Frederick alleges the world's tyrants would eat President Obama's lunch. Lunch? Follow U.S. Marine Corps practice: The highest-ranking officer in the field eats last. Last time I looked, the president of the United States was the highest-ranking officer anywhere. Sometimes you don't eat; it's the price paid for enlightened diplomacy and leadership.

John Esperian

LAS VEGAS

Silly season

To the editor:

Well, here we are in the silly season again. It's bad enough that we've had to listen to the Democratic presidential candidates being creative in their attempts to discredit each other, but now that the party seems to think it has a candidate, the faithful have begun to ratchet up the volume of complaint poured upon anyone who doesn't think the way they want them to.

It's called "The Big Lie" theory -- you scream it loud and long and long enough and maybe some fool will believe what you are saying is true.

It looks as if Sen. Barack Obama has learned his lesson. Too bad he hasn't learned anything else, like maybe a little history. Like appeasement, for example. How many centuries of history do we need to review to learn that you cannot talk, negotiate or deal with someone whose goal is our complete destruction?

John Frisby

HENDERSON

Toll roads

To the editor:

Before we proceed with private toll roads ("Toll road plan OK'd," May 16 Review-Journal), a public bond issue for this work should be presented to the voters. Private investment would be minimized with the issuance of tax-exempt private-activity bonds to fund the project.

With minimum investment, the profits seem excessive. Toll revenues could be better used to fund other road developments built by the public sector.

Another problem with the plan is that it is too timid in scope relative to our future traffic needs. The plan should be expanded to include additional lanes planned or under construction on the Las Vegas Beltway, Summerlin Parkway and Interstate 15 north of U.S. Highway 95.

Henry Schmid

LAS VEGAS

Charter schools

To the editor:

Matthew Ladner waxed poetic in Sunday's Review-Journal regarding the wonderful charter schools in Arizona ("In dire need of both quality and quantity"). He wrote that "Nevada policymakers must recognize the dire need for new high-quality schools. Currently, even ultra-high quality charter school operators around the country are frozen out of Nevada. If the operators of any of those top 10 schools in Phoenix wished to replicate their success in Nevada, they would be shut out -- an absurd denial of opportunity for Nevada's children."

While that may be true, I question why we would want to follow Arizona's lead. Yes, Phoenix has the highest concentration of charter schools in the nation. But they certainly aren't as cost-effective as Mr. Ladner implies.

The Arizona Republic (not even Rush Limbaugh or Vin Suprynowicz would accuse it of being part of the liberal media) ran articles stating that some of the schools were not very good about keeping accurate financial records, and are benefiting from very lax oversight from the state. The Republic also reported that the schools have been accused of inflating their daily attendance records, which helps them get more state money.

Yes, Nevada has some serious educational problems. But following the lead of Arizona in creating large numbers of charter schools isn't necessarily the way to go.

Terry Cox

HENDERSON

It's the voters' fault

To the editor:

Gasoline is approaching $4 per gallon. Who is to blame? As much as I hate to say it, folks we, the voters, are to blame.

There is no shortage of energy sources in this country, but there is a shortage of allowed types of energy development. Thanks to our elected representatives both in the House and the Senate, all types of energy exploration and power projects are at a standstill.

The politicians wail, gnash their teeth and wring their hands about the price of energy when, in fact, their pandering to the environmental Luddite groups is the cause of the present situation.

While it is the politician who continually votes to restrict the energy sources in the United States and causes the increase in costs, it is the voters of the United States who keep sending these representatives to the Washington. We the people caused this situation by casting our votes for representatives who care not one whit about how the energy situation affects the people. This situation can be changed through our vote; the next time, let's do it right.

John C. Lovelace

ST. GEORGE, UTAH

Selecting judges

To the editor:

A.D. Hopkins' May 18 story on the 2008 Judicial Performance Evaluations contains a pentimento of the basic problem with Nevada's system of selecting judges.

Nevada judges are elected by popular vote despite the fact that the electorate is not qualified to evaluate judicial performance. Only practicing attorneys and judges are in a position to rate judges.

The only thing worse than no vote is an uninformed vote, and Nevada judges are put into office by an uninformed vote. That is the reason we have a Supreme Court justice with a 45 percent retention rating when the other six justices' ratings range from 71 percent to 86 percent. It is the reason three District Court judges and three Family Court judges have ratings under 50 percent, and three more judges in each division have ratings under 60 percent.

Any judge not able to garner at least 60 percent of the voting lawyers' approval should not be eligible for re-election.

In a perfect world, our judges would be appointed from a list of eligible candidates compiled by a standing judicial evaluating commission that screens new applicants and approves incumbents for reappointment based on the current Judicial Performance Evaluation program.

If that process is too extreme a change for Nevada voters, an additional step could be added. The list of eligible candidates could be submitted to the electorate for a vote. At least then the public would be voting for candidates who are considered by their peers to be qualified.

Don Merz

LAS VEGAS