Why not read the pending health care bill?
To the editor:
I found Steve Metz's Nov. 26 letter fascinating. He labeled as "childish" Sen. Tom Coburn's effort to force a reading of the health care bill on the Senate floor. I am not sure what his alternative would be. Is it blind obedience?
Both the Senate and the House have passed convoluted, unintelligible 2,000-page health care bills that could affect our country for generations and potentially finish bankrupting the country. Both share a similar characteristic -- neither has been read by all of those voting for it.
In the case of the Senate, only those huddled behind closed doors with Harry Reid have any idea what the bill contains. Also, neither bill matches the president's rhetoric.
The bill deserves to see the light of day for the benefit of those senators deciding our fate as well as the taxpaying American public.
Reading the bill aloud on the Senate floor might be arduous, but it would be an effective way to expose its contents for all to see whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent.
We the people deserve that from an administration and a Congress that seems hell bent on cramming their idea of reform down our throats.
Reading the bill aloud is not childish but is a necessity in this day and age. A little effort to get it right is in order -- there is no need to rush with so much at stake. We need to be able to see the efforts of our elected officials and hold them accountable for a change. There are many of them who are not working in the best interest of the American taxpayer.
Bill Thompson
LAS VEGAS
Can't take heat
To the editor:
Barack Obama would do well to remember the old saw: no battle plan survives the first shot.
His upcoming Afghanistan war plan will be grand, detailed, please no one and ultimately fail. Why? Mr. Obama is an ideologue having preconceived notions of America's interests, will not trust our military to adapt to changing circumstances, cannot stand heat for any time and our allies will not risk their treasuries nor blood to support such a recognized weak leader.
I absolutely support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. However, I believe we should pull out of Afghanistan now given Mr. Obama's predictable disaster there.
Iraq is a success because George W. Bush could stand the heat, trusted his generals and adapted to changed circumstances.
Dave Fair
LAS VEGAS
Not secular
To the editor:
In Frederick H. Spoerl's Nov. 21 letter, "Not my God," he draws several incorrect conclusion based upon the wording of the U.S. Constitution that need to be addressed.
First, let em say that he is correct in his assertion that the word "God" is not included in our Constitution; however, the argument does not end there. The document also makes no mention of any separation of church and state. The First Amendment states, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." This creates no separation between church and state, only a prohibition for the government to form a singular state religion.
The larger mistake, however, was to conclude from his misinterpretation of the First Amendment that the United States is a secular country. He could not be further from the truth.
In fact, if we look to the Declaration of independence, we find that God holds a prominent role in the creation of our country and in fact, provides the foundations for not only the form of governance that was chosen, but for our very rights. The founders split from England to "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." God's laws are cited as the basis for the equality of man, and the reason to cease our subjugation to the king.
To make the point even more clear in the document, it is stated that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... " The term "their Creator," of course, can refer to none other than God.
From these two quotes we see that God is a necessary part of the government; without God, we have no "inalienable" rights at all. Once the rights we enjoy are no longer "inalienable," the government could have license to infringe upon them or remove them entirely at their whim, as the state would be the sole basis and grantor of our rights. Clearly this sort of tyranny of the government and the dependence upon the state for human rights is exactly what the founders set up our nation to avoid.
To prove the point, I give you another quote: In 1781, Thomas Jefferson said, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"
Further, if one looks at the closing text of the Declaration, the faith of the founding fathers is clear in that they "[appeal] to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions," prior to signing. Hardly a secular collection of men.
Far from demanding a permanent separation, they believed that religion, and the morality that comes from its faithful practice, was necessary to good government. I agree.
Lee Stahl
LAS VEGAS
Scary kids
To the editor:
It was great to read Amy Alkon's Thursday commentary on rude children and their accommodating parents. It often seems these children are not only omnipresent, but assumed to be the desired outcome of enlightened parenting.
It is nice to know I am not alone, and that at least one other person thinks as I do.
Unfortunately, I have the feeling this method of child development has made it through at least one full cycle, and now kids raised this way are themselves raising children in their own image.
Oh God, help us all.
Steve Johnson
HENDERSON
