Parents protesting plays care about their children

To the editor:

Parents who don't want their children exposed to R-rated plays are considered intolerant. Martin Elge, in his Wednesday letter, states anyone can find anything objectionable. Exactly.

We can no longer pray in schools or have Christmas displays or even put up a cross anywhere because that might offend someone, but it's intolerant for a parent to want to protect his child from the ugliness that goes on in society today.

The fact that children can see worse on TV is no excuse to stand back and allow it in the schools. I don't have children in school, but I applaud those parents for standing up and trying to protect their children. The schools lament that parents don't care, don't take an interest in the school. The parents who are objecting are the ones who make their children do homework, see that they go to school and attend parent/teacher conferences.

Instead the school wants to side with the parents who don't care what their children do.

Vicky De Leo

OVERTON

Both hypocrites

To the editor:

I have just one question about where the majority of the hypocrisy lies when it comes to a recent news item.

I am referring to a fundraiser held by the Democratic Party in New York City on Oct. 20 and attended by Barack Obama. The cost to attend was $30,400 per couple -- a tidy sum for most of working people. I understand that approximately one-third of the money raised -- probably our hard-earned tax dollars -- came out of the pockets of Wall Street tycoons. Aren't these same tycoons the people whom Mr. Obama has criticized, many times over, for their creative economic injustices?

Wait a minute. If this is the case, why are Wall Streeters supporting their accuser? Also, aren't those Wall Streeters some of the same lobbyists that Mr. Obama promised, if he became president, to neuter?

I guess this is just one more of Mr. Obama's broken promises to the American people.

Maybe we should take a pool to determine who -- Mr. Obama or the Wall Streeters -- was being more hypocritical. Perhaps we should call it a draw, as it seems Mr. Obama likes to keep everything on a level playing field.

CLARENCE LANZRATH

LAS VEGAS

Dark side

To the editor:

In his Wednesday column, "Obama and the dismantling of America," Thomas Sowell departed from his position as a conservative voice in American journalism and embraced the ideology of the very far right.

By penning words that paint Barack Obama as championing fascism (a national police force) and as a granny killer (a panel of experts deciding on medical treatment), he not only distorts the truth, he goes so far out of the realm of honesty that radical conservatives everywhere are smiling with their coffee.

Shame on Mr. Sowell for going over to the dark side.

Robert BeNcivenga

HENDERSON

Socialized medicine

To the editor:

The Oct. 14 letter by David Meyer ("Health care") begs a question, at least to me. Just what is the difference between a system run by the government and one run by commissioners appointed by the government -- or, even worse, ones appointed by the industry itself?

Also, although Mr. Meyer argues against any government involvement, he calls for a government mandate that requires all insurers to accept all applicants for insurance at reasonable and controlled rates. He also calls for insurers to be nonprofit corporations.

Which brings up the point that a lot of Americans are either not aware of or choose to ignore in their haste to trash any government-run program: We already have a "government option" -- in fact, many government options -- in our health care system. We have Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration and numerous programs for children, etc. So what is wrong with having another one that covers working age, non-veteran adults?

In fact, the plan outlined by Mr. Meyer is different from the proposed public options out there in name only and I see nothing wrong with his idea.

But why is he so opposed to the term "public option"? It seems he has fallen into the pervasive attitude out there that government involvement is OK and needed just as long as it is called something else.

I guess I could go even further and substitute the word "socialism" in place of "government involvement" or "public option," which only proves my point that some health care in this country has been "socialized" for many years and has been enthusiastically accepted by a populace that sees nothing harmful in it -- just as long as you don't call it what it really is: socialized medicine.

DAN OLIVIER

BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZ.

European care

To the editor:

I just spent three months in Europe -- England, Scotland and France. I observed and talked to many people about their national health care systems.

I heard only a few complaints, mostly about not getting an immediate appointment for non-emergency type events.

I heard many comments about specific emergency events and surgeries. I played cards with a woman who is 105 years old and still in good health. Her doctor makes house visits.

Please give American citizens the same quality of life that is being experienced in other Western countries.

I am very disappointed in the current progress toward establishing a national insurance system in our country. I feel we are being treated like citizens of a Third World country. I am disappointed in the Democrats and the administration for not holding up the platform that got President Obama and congressional candidates elected. My husband and I personally made cash contributions, housed a staff worker for three months, made phone calls and walked precincts.

The "public option," as it is currently being described, falls short of President Obama's campaign promise in which he said: "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, but if you don't like it you can go to a public plan. If you want to change jobs you can take your insurance with you."

Given the description of what is currently being proposed, I do not see how this campaign promise is being met.

I guess they were just empty words.

Linda Henderson

LAS VEGAS

Bad joke

To the editor:

In response to Ben Spillman's Wednesday story regarding Heidi Harris and Sue Lowden cracking jokes about a bomb being put in Harry Reid's car in 1981: At what point do these right-wingers think enough is enough?

It's one thing for them to be against the policies of Sen. Reid, and they are certainly within their rights to advocate voting him out. But joking about the possible death of anyone, especially a senator, is uncalled for.

I know that this Senate campaign is going to be a rough one. Sen. Reid knows how to take a punch, and he knows how to hit back hard, but I can't imagine he would ever make a joke about someone having his or her life threatened.

Ms. Lowden needs to learn that this kind of stuff isn't going to fly if she wants to be a U.S. senator.

All Ms. Lowden did by making jokes about an assassination attempt on Sen. Reid is show that she's not ready for the big time. Perhaps she's running for the wrong Senate.

Claire Long

LAS VEGAS