To the editor:
In his Sunday column (“Shall we give Harry the boot?”), Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick presented the question Nevada voters must consider in 2010 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid comes up for re-election.
My guess: A close examination of the facts will show that Sen. Reid has been far more interested in supporting things that reward the Democratic Party and himself than he is in helping Nevada or the country.
A case in point is the E-Verify program, which he vowed to keep out of contracts created with stimulus funding, and he did. This system requires employers to verify that their employees are U.S. citizens or have valid green cards. If not, they are not hired and are reported to Homeland Security.
So if Sen. Reid and the other Democrats who opposed this plan are really for creating jobs for the U.S. worker, then how can they oppose a plan that guarantees that only U.S. workers will get the jobs that they promise this stimulus plan will provide?
Could it be that they want new Democratic voters, and this is one way to get them?
I, for one, will not vote for Sen. Reid in 2010.
It is time he went back to doing whatever his family did in Searchlight.
What about the men?
To the editor:
I was shocked and saddened to see your one-sided, exploitative, front-page story in Sunday’s edition (“Working girls: Las Vegas’ 50 most prolific prostitutes”).
Why would you print the photos and full names of girls who are already involved in a dangerous world? Where are the photos of the pimps and thousands of married men who are customers or the owners of the escort agencies?
I am quite sure the Las Vegas police have the names and photos of pimps and johns. But these women’s photos sell more newspapers than photos of the men would though, right?
I may not agree with what they are doing, but given the number of illegal aliens, child abusers, drug dealers, deadbeat dads and con artists in this town, you have more pressing issues to write about than some working girls.
To the editor:
Isn’t it curious that the police and the press find it necessary to persecute prostitutes every few months or so when their trade is not only a minor activity in our economy, but with the proper legalization, health regulations and taxation, could be a benefit to the financial state of all concerned?
The bigger question and concern is why there are thousands of illegal immigrants loitering around every Home Depot and nursery in town. They are clearly undocumented, or they would be at worst working for a temporary agency.
Why isn’t the Border Patrol or the fraudulent Department of Homeland Security interested in these people? Why are the local governments, not to mention the IRS, not looking to collect employment and income taxes? Where are the unions? Why is there no outcry about these people working for a fraction of the wages that legitimate contractors would command?
Instead we are proud of ourselves for harassing women who are generally disadvantaged, and their clientele, while we encourage the real undermining of our very economy, a problem that is systemic rather than symptomatic.
To the editor:
I couldn’t help but notice that in Doug Elfman’s Sunday video game review column, “Game Dork,” Mr. Elfman does everything except review video games.
Now, let me clarify: I am not complaining about the ratings the video games receive, or whether they were desirable or undesirable. I am complaining about the reviews themselves. They say nothing about the games. They do not mention the ups and downs of game play, they do not talk about the quality or detail of graphics, they barely make mention of the stories that drive the games, and God forbid they state whether the game is fun to play or not.
What they do say, though, is whether there were certain, superficial “cool” elements in the game, such as how much blood spurts out of an enemy, or how many dragons there are. This is tantamount to explaining that a movie is good because it had a large number of explosions — not whether it had well-done special effects, just the sheer number of explosions.
I am taking the time to write to you about this matter because most newspaper readers do not look up game reviews on the Internet. Rather, they read them locally. I believe your readers deserve a thorough, interesting and, most of all, substantial review of games — in other words, what they are looking for — as opposed to having to read what boils down to: “Die Hard had 17 different swear words in it — Four out of four stars!”