Letters to the Editor for March 18, 2020
Pick up window workers should wear gloves
I was in Starbucks picking up coffee from the outside and the Starbucks person’s hand brushed mine.
In normal times not a big deal. However, with Covid-19 disease I told the young woman that she should consider wearing gloves. She said her family was trying to get her to do that but she didn’t want to.
And, I said, well I’m old — you’ll survive Covid-19 but I may not.
That made me think that all pick up windows should be requiring the folks to wear gloves for their own protection but also for the public’s protection — even though we have a choice to come inside a crowded place to pick up something, or to stay home.
Now, as far as I know no one in town has the virus but that’s likely to change.
How can we get the “pick up windows” to follow some kind of protection protocol for themselves and for their customers?
Developments, streets not representing community’s best interests
I have lived in Carson City for 37 years. I have seen so many transformations take place here. We have lost so many businesses: the Silver City Mall, the Ormsby House, Kmart, Supply One, IHOP, Penguin Burger and a partial strip mall on U.S. 50. Then, in 2016, we had downtown Carson City change from four lanes to only two. Now, to make matters worse, we are about to gain a very bad eyesore on the intersection of Carson Street and Stewart Street in the form of a roundabout.
Whose grand idea was this anyway? Sometimes I wonder if our Carson City leaders even know what they are doing. In other words, do they truly care about their constituents? Or are they more interested in lining up their own pockets by profiteering off of the hardworking taxpayers?
Bernie wrong on Castro
Bernie Sanders says he does not regret praising Fidel Castro. Really? For the past couple of years, I have been perusing the Life Magazine archive at books.google.com (for those of you too young to have ever seen it, the magazine ran from Nov. 23, 1936 to Dec. 29, 1972).
I am currently into early 1959 and there are some interesting stories, to say the least. The Jan. 19 issue carries a story about the Castro regime’s mass executions. The Jan. 26 issue has more gruesome executions and a photo of a laughing Raul Castro with the caption “Maybe 1,000 before we are finished.” The Feb. 2 issue carries an article entitled “Hate Holds Court in Cuba.” Pictures of people pointing fingers at people deemed unfit to live — sort of reminiscent of the “Reign of Terror” in France in 1793 and 1794. And then there is Ernesto “Che” Guevara. In the 1960s, young people all over the world wore “Che” T-shirts to pay homage to this “revolutionary.” Or, as anyone with any sense calls him, a “butcher.” He even crops up in the musical Evita. While he was from Argentina, he had nothing to do with the Peron regime.
Sanders touts “democratic socialism” whatever that means. To me, it is just plain old totalitarianism. The communists, the Fascists, the Nazis, the socialists all want the same thing; absolute control over the population from birth to death. Perhaps the young millennials who are driving Sander’s campaign should find out exactly where crazy Bernie is coming from. Read some history children!
I am not running for any political office and I approve this message.
Chuck Schumer swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, yet there he was threatening a co-equal branch of government with violence if they don’t acquiesce to his demands. So much for venerating the separation of powers.
Chuck is a disgrace and an embarrassment. If he had a modicum of integrity he would resign from the senate. But I doubt he will. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, men of intemperate minds are enslaved by their passions. He has little faith that others will honor their oath of office, since he so easily dishonors his.
Chuck obviously views the Constitution as an impediment to his societal ideals. As such, he and his ilk represent an existential threat to liberty and the rule of law.
As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 15, “the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” The Constitution protects us from the tyranny of the mob. Ignoring constitutional safeguards in favor of partisan political outcomes is a recipe for disaster.
While we are free to express our opinions and agree or disagree with court decisions; threatening the courts is dangerous and unacceptable. If we are to preserve the Constitution and the rule of law, the courts must be free from intimidation and retaliation. Without serious consequence, I fear others will be encouraged to follow suit or worse; consummate Schumer’s threats.