Stop prying into Gans’ private affairs
To the editor:
On Tuesday evening I caught a couple of different newscasts that reported the cause of death of Danny Gans. After showing the clip of the coroner's news conference, the reporters started speculating as to who prescribed this drug; how long he'd been on it; etc. That is none of the public's business.
As the coroner put it, this falls into the patient/doctor confidentiality. I whole-heartedly agree. Leave the family in peace. Stop prying into the private medical affairs of a public person.
Melanie Willard
LAS VEGAS
Bank money
To the editor:
I read with interest your Wednesday editorial, "Maybe we'll 'allow' you to pay it back." Apparently, you not only disagreed with the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the first place, but you're now upset that the government will allow only banks with solid financials to repay the loans.
Your editorial states "Regardless, instead of simply allowing mismanaged banks to fail, whereupon their good assets could be swept up by more cautions managers in bankruptcy auctions ... "
Let's say you were right and the Bush administration was wrong in trying to rescue those banks. I'd like you to tell me, then, who would "sweep up" the "good assets" of Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, US Bancorp, GMAC, Capital One, etc.? Those financial institutions all got TARP money. Had they all failed, who do you suppose would "sweep up" their "good assets" ?
That list came from page 1D of the same day's paper. If all of those financial institutions were allowed to fail, as you suggested, there wouldn't be enough banks or credit unions left with enough money to purchase those "good assets" and still have money left to make loans.
That's why the Bush administration created TARP. The only real problem with TARP initially was a lack of oversight, which was imposed later under President Obama. Now you're complaining about the oversight. Banks are "allowed" to pay back TARP funds when they are deemed solvent enough that they won't come back for more taxpayer money in the future. And when they do pay back the funds, it is with interest, so the taxpayers actually make money.
Allowing that list of banks to fail was simply not in the best interests of the people of the United States.
David Adams
LAS VEGAS
Bozo administrators
To the editor:
Why are there assistant principals in elementary schools? Is it to groom the assistant principal for the principal's job or is it so the principal can attend more meetings off campus?
Over the six years at my children's school, there have been four assistant principals and three off them had the managerial/people skills of a trainee at McDonald's. They are basically green and seem to be unaware of what their position is.
I have seen morale at the school fall as a result of administration movement. It seems the school district takes the qualified administrators from a successful school and sends them to a broken school, where they hope they can turn things around. Unfortunately, a bozo usually comes to fill in at the successful school and the good teachers follow qualified administrators.
Why can't assistant principals perform internships like those wanting to be a school psychologist or a student teacher? I think it would save the district some money and cut down on the Peter Principle.
William Manley
LAS VEGAS
Judicial recusals
To the editor:
The Review-Journal story on Monday's Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. repeatedly implies that the contributions at issue in the case from Massey CEO Don Blankenship went directly to West Virginia state Justice Brent Benjamin ("Court rules on elected judges," June 9).
There's an important First Amendment distinction: Mr. Blankenship spent his own money on independent ads criticizing an incumbent justice. Although Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, emphasized the limited scope of the ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent notes that it will likely result in a flood of litigation as attorneys seek to discredit judges likely to rule against them.
Nevada courts now face a period of confusion and political gamesmanship by litigators seeking to establish what exactly the court's new "probability of bias standard" means. Does it require a judge to recuse herself if her campaign was supported -- directly or with independent ads -- by the Nevada plaintiff's bar and a board member of the organization argues a case before her?
The ruling will clog the state's court system, and perhaps no one will be more pleased than Nevada trial lawyers.
Those who care about the First Amendment, though, should not believe for a minute that the ruling will do anything to improve judicial integrity.
Jeff Patch
ALEXANDRIA, VA.
THE WRITER IS COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER FOR THE CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS.
