Don’t move kids up if they’re not ready
To the editor:
Your Sunday editorial asking what stance the new Clark County School District superintendent would take on social promotion hit the nail on the head, but it also raises two questions:
1. Why have previous administrators and previous School Boards failed to entertain such a common-sense solution?
2. Now that it's been brought up, will it be considered at all?
Prior to retirement, I taught for eight years in a local junior high school. I had students who couldn't function at the seventh- or eighth-grade level, and I asked my principal why it was common practice to send them on to high school rather than retain them. The answer I got was that the state supports the district on a per-pupil basis, and they will not provide funding for a student who is repeating a grade.
I don't know whether that situation exists today or not, but it is clearly a bad policy if it does exist.
Owen Nelson
Las Vegas
Water export
To the editor:
Monday's letter to the editor, "Look to Alaska to solve our water problem," was interesting. Transportation of fresh water is one of our oldest problems. I remember towing an iceberg was a possible solution.
Unfortunately, a huge underwater pipeline through earthquake territory that still requires pumping to maintain the pressure does not seem viable at face value. The ocean floor is a hostile environment.
Oil, however, is transported by tankers, and coal and ores by large carriers. Wind or solar-powered water carrier vessels can be made with current technology.
Such a project could be given to engineering students to devise unique ways to transport water at low cost, low maintenance, low investment cost and high safety. Consider oil tankers should now be double hulled for environmental reasons, but a water carrier vessel can be single hulled. There is a weight advantage -- fresh water is lighter than sea water, and more refined ideas are possible.
The issue is not whether water from Alaska can be transported to California and/or other states. It is about the investment and operating costs of doing so. The water can come from any river delta.
Andrew Lewis
Las Vegas
On the sideline
To the editor:
Regarding recent letters on the topic of "opting out" of Social Security, let me educate readers and aver that no one may opt out of Social Security, even if Congress should pass a law permitting such an option.
If young people stopped paying into the system while retired people still collected checks, the money would still have to be paid by the people. Would those still participating tolerate being charged more to make up the imbalance? Absolutely not. The government would simply indirectly raise taxes elsewhere and not call it Social Security taxes, and those who believed they had opted out would still be paying.
When Social Security was first imposed, the initial retirees enjoyed benefits though they hadn't contributed. Now there is no way to end it without some paying in and receiving no benefit. Can we in good conscience bequeath such a burden on our children, or our children's children? I say not.
I propose that we do away with this monstrosity, and may it be done on the day I become eligible to start collecting.
Donald Darling
Las Vegas
Work together
To the editor:
I think that most people have missed the mark in analyzing the mid-term election results.
Regardless of anyone's political view, everyone was served a slice of humble pie.
Supporters of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda learned that the number of Americans who do not agree with their views are large enough to put a hold and balance on it.
Supporters of the Tea Party and conservative movements learned that not everyone agrees with their viewpoints, and loyalists can be easily painted as extremists.
I challenge everyone to stop their partisan bickering (on both sides) for just one day. Perhaps we can actually learn our lessons and adjust how politicians and their constituents view each other and work together toward a positive direction, wherever We the People decide that direction is.
Nathan Christensen
Las Vegas
Poor option
To the editor:
Last week's election had as many as seven statewide races in Nevada that allowed voters to select "none of these candidates." In fact, in one race 35,571 Nevadans selected that choice.
What good can be achieved by selecting "none of these candidates"?
Selecting "none of these candidates" means that the voter is leaving it up to others to decide who will win an election. If a voter doesn't like any of the candidates, then why bother to vote at all? Those voters might as well stay home and wait for the results of the election so that later they can complain about who won.
If those Nevadans who voted for "none" truly believe that was the best decision they could make, then maybe the "honor" Las Vegas recently received for being named the nation's dumbest city should be extended to the entire state.
S.G. Hayes Sr.
Las Vegas
