Turning out lights makes no difference
To the editor:
On Saturday night, much of the world turned off their lights ("Residents welcome fabulously dark Strip," Sunday Review-Journal). The net result? Nothing. No change in the climate. No increase or decrease in CO2 gases.
It seems to me that we now live in a world of contractions. For all of man's efforts, the climate isn't getting warmer, the seas aren't rising and the polar bears aren't drowning.
The reason? Man can't affect climate. He can't make the wind stop. For that matter, he can't start blowing.
If you doubt that, why don't we stop the eruptions on Mount Redoubt in Alaska? Or stop the earthquakes happening all over the globe?
What man can do -- or rather, governments can do -- is to create another crisis, take our money to solve it, fail miserably (like always) then have their politicians run on the problem they created in order to win re-election. Honestly, can you point out just one "problem" that government action has solved in the past 100 years? I didn't think so.
As for me, I'll keep living my life as usual and laughing at all those who believe the lies. All that was missing from Saturday's "lights out" was everyone holding hands and singing "Kumbaya."
Bill Wilderman
LAS VEGAS
Tax hikes are coming
To the editor:
Thank goodness the Democrats in the state Senate and Assembly are going into subcommittees to determine priorities. You know, priorities for essential government services ("Hearings to address budget priorities," Sunday Review-Journal).
My guess is that all government services will be deemed "essential." The only problem from their perspective is that not enough money is being spent on them.
The Democrats' answer will be -- drum roll, please -- to raise your taxes.
Forrest A. Henry
NORTH LAS VEGAS
National health care
To the editor:
In response to Ricky Kendall's Sunday letter to the editor advocating a Canadian-style health care system for the United States:
Universal health care decides who is best to receive what they need at any given time. If you do not have personal knowledge of Canada's system, listen to those who do.
I have a cousin in Toronto who was found to have a severe case of sleep apnea. When she returned to the specialist for the results, ready to undergo surgical treatment, one question from her doctor changed everything: "Does your sleep apnea keep your husband awake at night?" No.
"Then you are not entitled to have this surgery through your health insurance and will have to pay for it yourself."
Forget the fact that sleep apnea has many dangerous side effects that can kill you. That is not the consideration.
This same cousin has some shoulder problems that are painful and need surgical attention. After being massaged and medicated, she asked her doctor if an MRI would identify the problem. His response? We can order that, but it will take at least one year to get an appointment.
It is also well-known that, regardless of your situation, if you are considered too old to save, you can be denied treatment.
Mr. Kendall, ask yourself why many Canadians come to the United States and willingly pay for their treatment here rather than have some government bureaucrat decide whether they are "eligible."
Our system is not perfect and could use some tweaking, but national health insurance or anything run by the government is not the answer. Learn what goes on elsewhere before you totally buy into national health care and condemn our system.
Mercedes H. Barris
HENDERSON
Death penalty politics
To the editor:
Jane Ann Morrison's Saturday column demonstrates the reality that the death penalty in the United States is a misnomer for everyone but the murder victim ("Using cost angle is just a back-door way to get what death penalty foes want").
Paul Browning, the murderer described in the column, was sentenced to death 23 years ago. What is the likelihood that this criminal would still be alive if he were not in jail?
For a career criminal, a lengthy incarceration on death row often prolongs his life.
The death sentence is infrequent, but not rare, in the United States. The death penalty, however, is rare.
It is true that multiple appeals and reviews do increase the cost of the death penalty. But that is the part of the process that must be altered. How long should an appeal take? How many are necessary?
Ms. Morrison cites complaints about costs as being used by death penalty opponents to lobby against executions. The appeals process is their weapon of choice.
Life without the possibility of parole is a serious sentence and would be of value if that sentence were indeed always final.
Stan Ames
HENDERSON
