We need to rethink our approach to growth
To the editor:
Your characterization of the report by the Sonoran Institute reflects the closed-minded thinking that plagues Nevada (Tuesday editorial, " 'New' report?"). Last time I checked, we are the state hardest hit in this recession on all fronts. Your editorial sends a clear message that the Review-Journal does not want to consider any new ideas or new "think" as to how to recover as a more resilient economy.
The Sonoran Institute has aided policy-making in states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Montana and Wyoming -- all states that have not experienced this recession to the depth or breadth that we have, all states that rank above Nevada in all categories for measurements of quality of life, education, health care and the ability to recover from this recession. That's a sure sign that the Sonoran Institute has something worth our while to listen to.
You make an astounding criticism of "stakeholders" in your editorial, accusing the so-called "progressives" of including only people like "them." This is not true. The stakeholders who are vitally interested in sustainability are a diverse group. Business people and neighborhood activists, environmentalists and working people can and do have overlapping and similar goals -- for example, we want a high quality of life now for ourselves and in the future for our children, and we want a beautiful, vibrant desert surrounding our exciting city.
We happen to think we are in dire need of a new way of thinking -- by business leaders, community leaders and political leaders -- of the critical issues that the Sonoran Institute identifies and discusses in this report: water, economic diversification, land use, transportation, resource conservation and changing demography. Our old way of leading this community did not work, and it won't work in the future.
This report is not an edict to the future, but it offers some new and realistic suggestions as to how we can look at a different approach to work toward a better place to live in the years to come. You call the printing and publishing of these ideas "fascism with a smiley face." Well, we urge you to look at other states, states that have robust "free market" economies, states that have much more diverse economies than Nevada, states that have used some of these ideas. These states, which you by your definition are employing fascism, are smiling all the way to recovery, while Nevada struggles to make it day to day.
Jane Feldman
Lisa Mayo DeRiso
Las Vegas
Jane Feldman is conservation chair of the Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club. Lisa Mayo DeRiso is a board member of Scenic Nevada.
Health lawsuit
To the editor:
Gov. Jim Gibbons has found a way to include Nevada in the multi-state lawsuit against the federal government over the legality of mandates contained the health care bill. This move comes over the objections of Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who declined to join the lawsuit originally because she did not believe there was a legal basis for such an action and that pursuing it would be a waste of taxpayer money.
So what does Gov. Gibbons do? He finds a group of attorneys willing to represent the state for free in the action. How good is that? And Ms. Masto still objects? Why? It's not costing the taxpayers a dime.
Whether the lawsuit succeeds or fails should no longer be her concern. It's now someone else's problem, and what should have been her biggest worry originally -- the cost to the state of going forward -- has been eliminated.
Let's call a spade a spade. Ms. Masto could care less about the expense to taxpayers. Her objection is based purely on ideology, not necessarily what's in the best interests of Nevadans.
In fairness, can't the same be said of Gov. Gibbons? Of course his actions are purely political. The only exception seems to be that in this case, Gov. Gibbons appears to be on the side of the majority of Nevadans.
Bill Stott
Henderson
No nukes?
To the editor:
For those who wish to eliminate nuclear weapons, you'd best consider the consequences.
Nuclear weapons are extremely destructive, and various nations have them. But there are also rogue nations that might have them or will have them. It behooves a nation to possess such weapons as a deterrent, and history has proved that deterrent to work, so far.
President Barack Obama is presently considering a policy that would inform the world that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against certain enemies, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons. This policy should be cause for impeachment, for it would most certainly indicate that a president is not willing to protect and defend the citizens of the United States by whatever means necessary. Was that not part of his oath?
I am nearly 84 years old, a World War II veteran, and I still have very vivid memories of the 1930s and '40s. And if you think Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler would have hesitated to use nuclear weapons if they had them first, remember that Hitler used the V2 rockets indiscriminately against British civilians, even as World War II was concluding with the undeniable defeat of the Axis coalition.
J. Levin
Las Vegas
