FROM OUR READERS: Don’t blame media for Kenny’s reputation

To the editor:

So Former Clark County Commissioner Erin Kenny's attorney, Frank Cremen, ever vigilant, blames the media (specifically the Review-Journal) for "bashing Kenny and casting her as a rat for turning on her former colleagues." He goes on to state that "The R-J has made this woman the most vilified and hated woman in Clark County."

Mr. Cremen, with all due respect, I believe it was Erin Kenny's lies, deceit and corruption that made her the most vilified and hated woman in Clark County. Stop blaming others for your client's actions.

Todd Harvey

LAS VEGAS

Oink, oink

To the editor:

The headline of Erin Neff's Thursday commentary says it all: "Earmark? Yes, but it's our earmark." The already-successful Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy does not need $200,000 from the federal government.

This sickening collusion by people all over the United States is part of what's going to drag this country to the point of no return: If the rich feds throw me a bone, I'll lick them, even if tossing me that bone contributes to someone else going hungry.

The heck with funding state schools appropriately for everyone: Let's provide a federal handout for kids who, by Ms. Neff's own admission, are already being schooled with funds far above Nevada's per pupil average. Does this make sense to Erin Neff -- or anybody?

Ms. Neff's convoluted selfishness, purportedly on our community's behalf, makes the Review-Journal's typical anti-government editorial rants sound brilliant.

BETTY BUEHLER

LAS VEGAS

Dog gone

To the editor:

In the Monday editorial, "Dog and pony show," you attempted to take a shot at the California Legislature over a proposed law to fine owners who don't sterilize their cats and dogs. What you really did was to show your ignorance of the issue of pet overpopulation, along with other animal issues, and your lack of compassion for the endless suffering that results from it.

You say cutting down on the number of unwanted animals "might be a good cause." Might be? Do you not read your own letters to the editor? In Saturday's paper Bill Edwards' letter highlighted the magnitude of the problem: 3 million to 4 million healthy animals are killed every year in this country, 405 dogs and cats every hour.

And you think it might be a good ides to cut that number down?

You say mandatory spaying and neutering won't help the problem. Well the experts in this area, the ones who have helped create no-kill communities, disagree with you. They know that a strong spay and neuter program, along with a strong adoption program, are the best ways to stop the killing. And they are doing it.

You don't think there should be a law mandating people to do the right thing because they will on their own. Obviously, they're not. People aren't getting their pets spayed or neutered while millions die. People are still buying pets from stores and breeders while millions die. People are still breeding more while millions die. Clearly "people" are not doing the right thing.

And about that California law against tethering dogs to trees that you seem to think is ridiculous: Please educate yourself on the many reasons tethering dogs to any stationery object for long periods of time is not only inhumane for the dogs but also dangerous for people.

Dogs treated like that are much more likely to become antisocial and vicious. A child in Atlanta was just killed by one such dog when she wandered into his area. If Atlanta had a similar law as California, that child might still be alive.

While California is the first state to pass a statewide law specifically limiting the amount of time a dog may be tethered, more than 100 local governments across the country have passed similar legislation in recent years. You should be complimenting the intelligent and compassionate people of California who passed that law. Instead you're mocking people who care about animals and writing sarcastic pieces about efforts to help animals and people.

Dori Gilbert

LAS VEGAS

Name change

To the editor:

I read with incredulity Rick Marks' July 15 letter to the editor regarding the changing of the name of the Community College of Southern Nevada to the College of Southern Nevada. I have no idea which members of student government Mr. Marks claims to have spoken to regarding his assertion that the school's administration and the Board of Regents were behind the drive to change the college's name. And I have no idea why he is so eager to denigrate the achievements of the school's student government and to impugn the intelligence and academic achievements of the 40 percent of college students in the United States who attend two-year colleges.

I will not descend to the same level of psychobabble that Mr. Marks did. I can only hope that he treats the students in his classes with more respect than he has shown to the college's student government and our Board of Regents.

As last year's student government treasurer, and this year's president, I was intimately involved with the petition to change the college's name. Changing the name of the college was one of student government's five goals for the 2006-2007 academic year. We held many rallies on the three main campuses to educate the college's students about the reasons for the name change and to collect more than 10,000 signatures. We presented our petition to the regents as an information item at a March board meeting. The regents asked for input from school's faculty senate on the name change and the faculty senate gave its approval.

Not all faculty agreed (perhaps Mr. Marks made his voice heard then) but the majority of the faculty senate signaled approval. The regents voted to allow the college to change its name to the College of Southern Nevada at the March meeting (where Mr. Marks again would have had a public opportunity to voice his opposition).

They also voted to approve changing the name of Western Nevada Community College to the Western Nevada College. In my view, the process worked.

Taylor Gray

HENDERSON

THE WRITER IS PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA.

Of interest

To the editor:

How bad does the American economy have to be before the Fed cuts interest rates? We have record numbers of unsold new and resale homes plus the ones that will come on the market through the foreclosure process. People are losing their savings and equity in existing homes because of mortgages they cannot afford anymore because rates have risen. When will it get better?

If The Fed drops rates, more borrowers will qualify, homes will get sold and sales of durable goods will increase. This situation is comparable to a local government waiting to install a new traffic light, only after a certain number of deaths has occurred at that corner.

Let's all call on the Fed to ease the situation.

HOWARD ADLER

HENDERSON