Of wrongs, rights and doing what is right
To the editor:
As a political scientist somewhat familiar with constitutional rights, I had briefly sparred with my unabashed liberal friend via e-mail that building a mosque near Ground Zero -- although constitutional and therefore legal -- was not the proper path to pursue. He dismissed my argument for its divisiveness, absolute insensitivity and questionable motives. It was about rights, not responsibilities, he argued.
When the Florida preacher made public his intent to burn copies of the Quran in public, I received an e-mail from my liberal friend railing against the self-identified Christian pastor. He argued it was about responsibilities, not rights.
I reminded him of his earlier e-mail.
The mosque should be built -- elsewhere (adding to the 100 mosques already in New York City). The pastor should not burn the Qurans. Lives have been lost at Ground Zero. Lives will be lost because of the possibility of a Quran burning.
My late father had taught me the difference between what I could do, and what I should do. That is the key.
Martin Dean Dupalo
Las Vegas
Speak English
To the editor:
In response to B. Wilson's Wednesday letter, I have a better idea than spending even more money on schools than is spent now: Create for-profit English schools, let the teachers moonlight and get paid what they're worth and make proficiency in English mandatory for enrollment in public school.
The illegals can easily afford it -- look at what they send to Mexico every year.
The argument of equal education for all is moot -- it's not happening now, with enormous resources devoted to English as a Second Language students at the expense of the education of students who are citizens.
Maybe the kids will drag their parents to the classes to learn English, as well.
John Devine
Flagstaff, Ariz.
An inviting target
To the editor:
Why did Clark County once again shoot its taxpayers in the foot -- I mean, wallet? The article in Friday's Review-Journal, "Shooting park manager decides to move on," said Don Turner, the Clark County Shooting Park manager, has resigned. Now all that is left to chance is the ultimate fate of this park.
In today's world, there are many government-sponsored mandates that all Americans take for granted and feel they enjoy as a right. These include education, roads, bridges, sanitation, a reasonable retirement with support from Social Security, and health care, including Medicare for retirees and Medicaid for the less fortunate. The list goes on. There are also many government-sponsored programs that are nice to have yet have nothing to do with the essentials of modern life and do not benefit everyone. A $61 million shooting park subsidized by all taxpayers in competition with private parks is one of them.
Several years ago, I ran across an e-mail with a Nevada state representative urging Sen. Harry Reid to hurry up with the shooting park deal because people were moving into nearby housing. I wondered, "Why such urgency?" If, as a recent article points out, less that 50 percent of Clark County residents own guns (let alone use them for target practice), then why should county taxpayers subsidize such a highly specialized park?
In good financial times this issue would have flown below the radar, but in today's economic climate, where every million dollars actually counts, the shooting park is a grand target for elimination or privatization, just not subsidization.
Richard Rychtarik
Las Vegas
Yellow journalism
To the editor:
The Review-Journal has made shameful strides in rewriting the book for bottom dwellers. Friday's edition, with its front-page story in white-on-black text, attempted to poison the upcoming coroner's inquest into the police killing of Erik Scott ("Costco shooting: Darker details come to light").
Not expecting a lot of truth here, but someone is the driving force of this attack on the character of the victim. Someone at either the Review-Journal or at Metro, or most likely both, said "Circle the wagons, boys! This one might be a bit sticky."
The fact that the digital video surveillance at Costco was kept from not only the public, but from the attorney representing the Scott family, is highly suspicious. Revealing the one-sided process of the inquiry also tells a sordid tale.
The standard response from the media is always, we stand by our story, and it is news. A lot of research and poking into the life of Erik Scott has revealed he might not have been perfect. Does that mean he should have been killed? Who among us could withstand 24-hour surveillance?
To find someone to suggest that Mr. Scott was a less-than-flawless human being, who just happens to be an ex-wife, is pathetic. Perhaps you've heard the adage, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." And how many couples can boast they never had an argument? Oh, and Mr. Scott got angry because he was bitten twice by a dog.
The authors, Lawrence Mower and Antonio Planas, more than likely received kudos from colleagues in praise of their front-page story. The possibility is just as strong that they got kudos from members of the police.
If there exists -- and if not, there should be -- a hall of fame for yellow journalism, Friday's entry would be a strong candidate.
William C. Dwyer
Las Vegas
