Killing dogs? What about the unborn?
To the editor:
In response to J.C. Watts' Aug. 12 commentary acknowledging that the public is disgusted over the Michael Vick dogfighting controversy, yet at the same time turns a blind eye to abortion:
While the dogfighting outrage is currently being trumpeted throughout the airwaves, it would behoove us to note that many of this country's legislative representatives voted against banning the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion -- which is never needed to save the life of the mother.
What kind of person would oppose banning a procedure whereby a defenseless child, about to be delivered from its mother, is dramatically murdered, usually by puncturing the back of the child's skull and removing its brains?
Gruesome? Barbaric? Inhumane? Absolutely.
If legislation were presented today that would outlaw this type of procedure on dogs, would there be any opposition to it?
Greg farina
LAS VEGAS
La La Land
To the editor:
I am the person referenced in Geoff Schumacher's Sunday column ("Teacher naïve ... ") who "suggested" in my recent letter to the editor that Sharon Stephens is "living in La La Land" given her letter to the editor wherein she outlines her presidential platform for her perfect society.
I am honored that Mr. Schumacher, whether he realized it or not, confirmed my case -- and the cases of others -- so eloquently. It isn't often that liberal newspaper columns pay such strong tribute to us conservatives, who are mainstream middle class. All we ask for is logic, and simple logic at that.
We oppose the increase of the minimum wage to $15 an hour for people who, for some reason, think that they're supposed to make a living wage for unskilled work.
The list goes on: We are people who want criminal thugs off the street, not in "recovery centers"; we are people who think the "war on drugs" is lost yet the government keeps throwing good money after bad peoples' drugs; we are people who see diversity on a daily basis and are just trying to keep our own heads afloat -- we don't have the time or the inclination to keep anybody "down"; we are people who feel that if we earned the money, we should keep it; we are people who earn the money to buy a home, not ask for the government hand them one; and we are people who also earn the right to go to college and figure out how to pay for it.
Mr. Schumacher made my case brilliantly. And, yes, nothing has changed. Ms. Stephens is still living in La La Land. Naive? Nah. Deluded? Yes.
She'd never make it past the primaries -- if she even got on the ballot.
Jan Ashman
LAS VEGAS
No knowledge
To the editor:
In his Sunday commentary defending Marxist teacher Sharon Stephens, Geoff Schumacher displayed a total lack of knowledge of the term "tax brackets." He seemed completely unaware of the fact that the people in the lowest bracket pay little or no tax, while the upper 10 percent are already paying roughly 90 percent of all income taxes. He says he is all in favor of progressive taxation, acting as if it doesn't already exist.
Kudos to the Review-Journal for allowing Mr. Schumacher, along with Erin Neff, a forum in which to demonstrate that a total lack of knowledge of what is going on around one does not disqualify someone from writing commentary for a newspaper.
Jack Kirkey
LAS VEGAS
His rich friends
To the editor:
How dare the Review-Journal commend George W. Bush for his fiscal responsibility? At last check the war in Iraq has cost this country almost $500 billion, not to mention more than 3,600 American soldiers.
The cost of the Iraq war in dollars, American lives and goodwill toward the United States is so obscene that I can't believe the Review-Journal has the audacity to commend this president for doing such a good job keeping taxes in check.
If you tack on the remaining $400 billion to $700 billion more this war is going to cost us, it means that every man woman and child is spending $3,000 to $4,000 on the "liberation" of a country whose residents will most certainly never want to speak to us again.
Mr. Bush doesn't care about the poor, the middle class or even the upper-middle class, no matter if they're blue or red. He cares only about the greens, and I'm not talking about hippie tree huggers. It's about money and a ruling class that lies, cheats and starts wars in an effort to keep the status quo.
If you think I'm wrong, ask yourself why on God's green Earth a Republican president would ever align himself with Democrats on something like immigration reform? I think that if you begin to think of the ramifications to the wealthy should "real" immigration reform occur, you can begin to understand why a lame duck Republican president would be willing to take the heat from his base.
Fiscal responsibility is all about how one spends his (or his country's) money, not just about how he spends it today.
MARTIN ELGE
LAS VEGAS
