Letters to the editor Sept. 26
Liberal ideals of equality are America’s ideals
On Sept. 16, I read the commentary by Dan Mooney – his comments on freedom and virtue and liberalism
While Mr. Mooney is fairly liberal with his usage of the word virtue, he’s less than definite on specifics. The virtue he seemed to venerate above all else was self-dependence, self-sufficiency, self-promotion and general selfishness.
Following this, I could only ponder his curious argument that with the expansion of government, liberty is lost. Again and again he presents the simplistic argument that size of government equates to loss of freedom when our government and the governments of many lands have proved quite adept at atrocity and crippling actual social injustice with quite a meager government at hand.
Liberalism, Mr. Mooney, is simple. It states under the law that all people are equal. It is the idea that society can provide for the most vulnerable and helpless from the entitled and powerful.
“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.” Those were liberal, radical words when they were penned in a time of kings and aristocrats, yet within them is an ideal of personal value and importance that resonates centuries later.
It doesn’t matter how rich you are, poor you are, the color of your skin, the form of your faith, or the sex of your body, you are equal and enjoy the freedoms of all people. And that, Mr. Mooney, is an American virtue.
One more liberal justice, and goodbye rights
Sen. Reid seems to stand up for the Second Amendment – the right to keep and bear arms – with many of his votes in the U.S. Senate. If he didn’t, I believe the Nevada voter would remove him from office.
How does he work against the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment? Here is how. He didn’t reject the last two U.S. Supreme Court nominations when it was clear they had no respect for the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The court now supports the right by five justices for, and four against. It is hard to believe that one more appointment to the court and a vote for Sen. Reid could kill the Second Amendment as we know it.
Is this his plan? I think so. This is the double-cross.
People, more than pets, deserve safety warning
I read with interest the article entitled “DMV to warn motorists about pet laws.” This article said the DMV will modify its online handbook to remind motorists that leaving a pet locked in a hot car is a crime. I wondered if there was a similar warning to drivers about babies and small children, so I went to dmvnv.com and ran a search, and guess what? There is no such warning about the danger to babies and small children. PETA, of course, wouldn’t even think about suggesting the same warning for humans.
So far this year, 41 children have died nationwide from being forgotten or intentionally left in a closed vehicle. This is an increase over 2009 when 33 babies died similar deaths. No babies should be forgotten just because their parents are in another world on the way to work or when they decide to go shopping.
If the DMV thinks it should tell us what the majority of us already know – that hot weather, living and breathing beings, and a locked, closed vehicle are dangerous, shouldn’t it include something similar about children?
Or, maybe, forgetting or purposely leaving a baby or small child in the back seat isn’t a crime.
Listen up, city leaders: leave street alone
I just read the article on approval of spending $300,000 to study whether or not the narrowing of Carson Street through downtown is a good idea. Save our money.
Over the past few months, I have asked many people about it, and the end result is I could find nobody in favor of the idea. People want to know why do governments, at all levels, insist on spending money we don’t have? Why are you afraid to put it to a vote of the people? Seems to me, from what I have read, the majority of the people don’t want it. What part of that don’t you understand?
The argument that cities elsewhere have done it doesn’t work for me. What about trucks who still have to deliver to the downtown area? And what about safety? What about time involved in responding to an accident or fire or a hostage situation? What if a fatality occurs on the bypass and the NHP shuts down the bypass while they investigate?
No, our government has not thought it through, and they have certainly gone deaf to the citizens of our town. Well, come election time and you no longer represent us, maybe you will hear us then.
Look at Angle’s record
of voting ‘no’
TV is inundated with news of the political scene. What have these individuals accomplished in previous years?
The year is 1999 and the legislators are running through the halls to get to their meetings, along the way possibly contacting individuals, urging them to agree to vote on several of their bills.
During this period, we have Assemblywoman Sharron Angle and her voting record for the entire period she was in office. Ms. Angle voted no on 10 bills, excused five times.
These were bills on education, life resuscitating treatment, provisions relating to chief justices, among other important bills.
Try a test run of two-lane Carson Street
There seems to be a tremendous conflict regarding making Carson Street into two lanes from William Street to Stewart Street. In order to do that, it would cost an untold sum on money. This is to help downtown Carson City. The payback of increased business is also untold.
There were four lanes on Carson Street before the bypass. Traffic was hell. The traffic is now half what it was. Going down to two lanes would make the traffic just as bad as it was before. Others say that’s not true. It will bring traffic to downtown.
Why can’t we try to temporarily, for a month or so, restrict traffic on Carson Street to just two lanes before we spend a lot of money to go back to what Carson City was like in the ’50s and ’60s when the population was only 5,000 to 8,000 and the only shopping was in downtown.
Let’s see how the emergency vehicles navigate with the two lanes, while people are trying to turn left or parallel park.
Sports facility is valuable addition for area
The Parks and Recreation Department is thrilled to see the Carson City Youth Sports Facility project move forward. We believe this is going to be a very valuable recreational facility for our community, and we are sure that it will receive hundreds of hours of use.
We want to applaud the dedication and work of Carson Little League and their board – especially Tim Terry – Don Smit from Plan One and all of the contractors who have pledged to donate their time and skills toward this wonderful project.
It is quite amazing in these tough economic times that these builders and contractors would be so generous. This, however, speaks volumes to the dedication our community has to our youth.
We also would like to thank the Carson City Planning Department, Building Department, Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for their support in clearing the way for project.
Carson City Parks and Recreation Director
Paslov is out in left field on mosque issue
I have read a number of columns by Dr. Eugene T. Paslov and usually wind up wondering where his common sense is, and just laugh off his single-minded notions.
However, the latest missive regarding the freedom of religion issue just can’t go unanswered. I don’t really have any strong feelings either way on this issue, but his comments of Islamophobic attitudes, those with marginal knowledge, toxic elements in politics, yada, yada, yada, are just unbelievable. Has he even watched the Fox News shows or those from CBS, CNN or the articles in the newspapers?
Most every commentator or analyst I have seen has made the comment that although the right to build the Muslim structure is protected by the First Amendment, the choice of the location leaves a lot to be desired, and anyone with an ounce of empathy should realize it is a very sensitive location. That is also the stand of most everyone I have personally talked to about the issue.
The remarks about attacking the president’s support of our constitutional freedom of religion is just so much smoke and mirrors. No one denies the right to worship as you see fit. The real knock at the president is his wavering remarks and refusal to answer the question, “Do you think the location chosen is just too antagonistic?”
Get a grip, Doctor.
Michael R. Arnold