Letters to the editor Dec. 21
Legitimate reasons for opposing health bill
Dr. Paslov’s comment that, “Universal health care is an economic issue, not a political football,” is at best misleading. There are rarely political issues that do not involve vast sums of money: Defense, illegal immigration, Social Security, health care, and other “entitlements” are all huge dollar issues, as well as politically philosophical issues. To state it like he did, the doctor attempts to shade the whole question with a sort of “greedy Americans” guilt trip, a favorite ploy of left-leaning politicians. Are family heads, who makes sure that their families have enough for ALL of their needs, greedy people? Or are they simply exercising care with limited resources? In tough economic times, I’d say being careful takes priority.
But one of the main reasons that Americans are negative about “health care reform” is the way it was passed. Who doesn’t remember how this gargantuan bill was forced down Congress’ throat by Pelosi and Reid, who made sure that votes were taken before anyone had a chance to examine the bill? Shame on the president and his two cohorts for tricking Congress into a midnight vote. Shame on any congressman who voted for such a major political change (the first steps towards socialized medicine) without at least reading it first.
Perhaps many of us would be less upset with this undisguised grab for power by the president and the left if it had been done in an honest, open, and dare I say “democratic” manner.
School district isn’t being good neighbor
Suppose my home was on 40 acres in Carson City with residents on three sides of the property only. In a desire to save on my power bill, I am going to install 60,000 sqare feet (equal to the area of 150 highway billboards) of solar panels. Since they are not particularly attractive, I have decided to place them behind the house. In doing so, I am getting close – within 30 feet – of many residences.
Can I do this and be the good neighbor I want to be? The Carson City School District and most of the Planning Commissioners thinks so, but Robert Walters, an Eagle Valley Middle School neighboring property owner, doesn’t.
Flashing yellow lights save time, gasoline
A couple of days ago there was a letter to the editor complaining about how dangerous the flashing yellow left-turn arrow at Fairview and Saliman is. The writer of this letter is asking the city to remove the flashing arrow signal and go back to the old red/green left turn arrows.
Every day I spend many minutes of time waiting to turn from northbound Carson Street onto westbound Winnie Lane, when there is no oncoming traffic and I could safely make my turn if the left turn arrow were not red
If the city has an extra flashing yellow left turn arrow, I would love to have it installed at Carson and Winnie. I am absolutely positive that many of my Silver Oak neighbors would agree with me. We spend a lot of time waiting needlesly and wasting fuel waiting for that signal to change.
Science had nothing to do with Yucca decision
Guy Farmer’s Dec. 19 commentary, “Bring on the Yucca Mountain debate,” states that in 2004 President Bush broke his promise that Yucca Mountain would be based on “sound science” by “approving the Yucca project in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.” Based on this, Mr. Farmer states “Why should we trust the Feds and politicians who mislead, and even lie to, the good people of Nevada?”
Should all the people of Nevada trust what they read in the paper?
President Bush never approved the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP). This can only be done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). What Bush approved was the continuation of the licensing process leading to the submission of a license application to the NRC. The license application, in fact, was submitted to, and accepted by, the NRC for review in 2008. Of course, we may never know if the application was based on “sound science” since Sen. Reid succeeded in getting President Obama to cut the YMP budget in 2009 and the NRC budget for the license application review in 2010. It wasn’t science that put this project on hold. It was pure politics. The science has not had its day in court.