Letters to the Editor, March 4
March 4, 2012
Don’t buy reasoning behind high gas prices
Are any of you buying the explanations for high gas prices such as supply and demand, refineries shutting down, a crisis in Iran?
Well, demand is way down because of an exceptionally mild winter and the fact that Americans have caught on and are conserving now as a matter of habit. The refineries are shutting down because supply is at capacity. The Mideast crisis – please, do we have to pay every time some Mullah gets indigestion? Do you seriously think the Navy is going to allow Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz?
Can we stop ignoring the elephant in the room? The reason gas prices are so high is because of speculation on Wall Street. Twenty-five cents of every dollar we spend at the pump goes into these people’s pockets. That’s not 25 cents per gallon but per dollar. Do the math. Who are these people?
Goldman Sachs is a big player. Haven’t we given them enough already? What can we do? Provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill empower the government to limit the investment banks’ holdings in the commodities market.
These provisions are not being enforced. Why? I think we need to ask our representatives, don’t you? No single factor is holding up our economic recovery more than this.
Recommended Stories For You
Planned Parenthood offers many health services
I took a tour recently of the new Planned Parenthood Health Center in Carson, and I must say I was very impressed with the facility. Though not very large, it has everything it needs to offer up-to-date health services to low-income and uninsured women and girls, as well as men, in Carson City, Douglas, Lyon and Storey counties and other rural areas.
We have heard of the controversy regarding Planned Parenthood and abortion, but lots of people don’t know that many other health services are available for people who might never be able to afford them. Not only contraception, but prenatal care, breast and cervical cancer screening, mammograms, STD and HIV testing and treatment, sex education and adoptions are among the many issues that Planned Parenthood professionals can help patients with, either at the health center or by referral.
Although I have adequate health insurance, I know that thousands of hardworking Nevada women and students don’t. Planned Parenthood works on a sliding fee scale, which makes essential care affordable, and I, for one, am happy that the agency has come to Carson City.
I might add that thanks to the attacks on Planned Parenthood by those who wish to take these services away from our communities, donations have increased dramatically in the past few weeks. I guess others feel the same way I do.
Religious signage better than most signs
Having read the letter “Religious signage is in bad taste,” by Joshua Dealy published in the Feb. 23 issue of the Nevada Appeal, I sympathize with Mr. Dealy’s opinion.
I am wondering if the Wild Orchid live action signs are nearly as offensive to him. I would much rather explain a Jesus sign to a child than why the half-naked ladies are dancing on the sign. I fully agree with his right to express his opinion. I am just grateful that the First Amendment gives both sides of an issue the right to express their opinion publicly.
It seems to me that Mr. Dealy feels his religious beliefs are more valid than the party that put up the sign. Silence those with fundamental beliefs and pontificate on your own opinion seems to be the popular theme these days. Hurrah for America that his opinion is not more valid that another’s. Notice no one is trying to make the paper remove his letter.
I would like to draw attention to, what to me appears to be, a glaring error in Mr. Dealy’s reasoning. He states that by posting said signage, the party in question is guilty of dishonoring Jesus and misusing His name, and casting stones. I would deign to disagree.
I set forth the question to Mr. Dealy: If you claim to love Jesus as much as the next person, should you not attempt to make yourself at least familiar with His own words?
No one has complained about signs before
I would like to respond to Joshua Dealy’s letter about the signs outside of Yerington.
First, it does not say you’ll go to hell without Him. It says it’s hell without Him. This can be interpreted several different ways. No one is dishonoring or misusing Jesus’ name. Those signs have been there for quite some time, and no one has complained about them.
Why does Mr. Dealy think his rights are the only ones that count? This looks like the minority trying to tell the majority what to do.
If Mr. Dealy does not like the signs, then look the other way when you drive by.
Our rights are just as important.
Contraceptive controversy an attempt to unite GOP
Responding to Robert Kessler’s Feb. 21 letter, here are some facts:
Many religious organizations also engage in secular businesses, e.g. colleges and hospitals. Founders of a secular business having a religious motivation doesn’t mean that the business serves a religious function per se.
Religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, etc., serve and employ members of the general public, are part of the public arena, and are obliged to abide by public rules e.g. minimum wage, fire codes, non-discrimination in hiring. This regulation does not apply to any church regarding purely religious activities, it applies to their secular businesses where a church is no different from any other employer that must abide by governmental regulations.
This is patterned after similar state regulations. Twenty-eight states require insurers that cover prescriptions to provide coverage of FDA-approved contraception. Twenty states allow churches to refuse to comply on religious grounds, eight do not. Several Catholic colleges already provide insurance coverage for contraceptive benefits.
Church and Republican opposition to contraceptive use doesn’t reflect the beliefs of their followers: 99 percent of sexually-active women have used artificial contraception. Employees adhering to their employer’s religious position on contraception wouldn’t be forced to use it in violation of their beliefs.
This regulation was announced on Jan. 20. The controversy didn’t begin until Feb. 7 and appears to be manufactured by conservatives looking to politically unite Republican voters around a social issue and portray the regulation as big government intrusion into religious liberties.
Don’t be fooled.