Letters for April 1, 2009

No fear

Re “Overcome fear of a nuclear Nevada” (Know You’re Right, March 26):

I’m going to go ahead and use Amanda Williams’ logical argument for Yucca Mountain the next time I am in a financial crisis. Yup, if I lose my job, I’m going to become a prostitute. Hey—I have a vagina, I should use it to make money. I should not let the possibilities of herpes, or AIDS, or pregnancy, or arrest, or murder stop me from making a buck. I’m going to stop living in fear!

Estes Ward
via email

Don’t poison the state

Re “Overcome fear of a nuclear Nevada” (Know You’re Right, March 26):

As an ardent Republican and presumably an adherent to Free Market principles, Amanda Williams should be familiar with the concept of “risk/benefit analysis.” In allowing a nuclear repository less than 100 miles away from the state’s most popular city, in a seismically active area (Nevada ranks third in the nation in seismic activity), we would essentially be risking the state of Nevada as a viable entity. Is this worth a few bucks? It would not be courage to buy into this—it would be folly. And the people of Nevada have resoundingly said, “No!” to the whole idea.

By the way, it’s not true that “political maneuvering” is “trying to pull this opportunity” from us—we don’t want it! Also, “political maneuvering” tried to shove it down our throats in the first place. Williams may be too young to remember this, but the first bill to establish a repository called for three sites (Hanford, Wash., Deaf Smith, Texas, and Yucca Mountain) to be considered, and then one final site was to be selected. But in 1987, the other sites were removed from consideration before the study was completed. So Congress was left with the choice of approving Yucca Mountain or not—without even knowing if there were other, better choices for the repository.

There is a huge difference between “courage,” like our forefathers demonstrated, and “foolhardiness,” which seems to be the purview of the young. Williams needs to learn which is which.

Steve Pearson

Going No. 1

Re “Beer run revamp” (Green, March 12):

All of us Great Basin beer snobs note our ranking of No. 1 in the drinking department! We’ve achieved with less fanfare what the UNR basketball team has been trying to accomplish for years—a national title!

Also appreciated the article in the “green” section of the RN&R. We have always gone far out of our way to do the right thing, both here in the brewery and in our community. Few really comprehend the true merits of drinking from growlers. The silica and sodium are mined once, made into a bottle, transported empty and filled up again and again. This truly leaves a far smaller carbon footprint since much of the waste and impact occurs in shipping the heavy full bottles or full cans and the cost of refrigeration as the cans or bottles sit in some convenience or grocery store refrigerator waiting for a home. Growlers make lots of sense, as do kegs, as you pointed out, with the homebrew crowd. One note, I don’t think too many pour their beer out if they haven’t drunk the entire half-gallon—yes it is a little flatter, but who needs all that carbonation—it only makes you belch and fart!

I really like your line, “Minimize your waste while getting wasted.” Can I borrow it? Most local brewers practice significant recycling. Here at Great Basin we go a little overboard by recycling all of our grain, spent hops, yeast and trub. It’s messy, it’s a pain, but it is the right thing to do. We also have a staff member, Jenn McDuffy, the annual winner of our “Mother Earth” award, who organizes recycling efforts in the restaurant and helps get the staff involved in community and environmental efforts.

Anyway—keep writing good stuff.

Tom Young
Brewmaster, Great Basin Brewing Co.

Get us out

Dear President Obama: We chose you, not a Bush clone—McCain—to end two internationally and nationally illegal occupations of foreign nations.

These are not “winnable” wars. The human and dollar cost of these speciously misguided endeavors are unbearable for our United States and the world.

Walden Joura

Cabela’s loss

Re “Cabela’s choice” (Editor’s note, March 26):

So Cabela’s has a company policy to fire employees who advertise in publications like the Reno News & Review. No problem there. Nevada is a fire-at-will state. Fire away! But why would RN&R readers patronize a business like that when there are so many alternatives big and small, like Hunting World, Maurice Sporting Goods, Champs Sports, Sierra Trading Post, Out of Bounds, Bobo’s, Sundance, Reno Fly Shop, Golf Headquarters, Reno Mountain Sports, Scheels, Sports Authority, REI, Big 5, even Wal-Mart? So, where should you spend your sporting goods dollars? Easy one. Watch the spaces between the articles in the Reno News & Review to see which stores are willing to belly up to the bar and advertise where you point your eyeballs. They deserve your business.

Rich Dunn
Carson City

Tough choice

Re “Cabela’s choice” (Editor’s note, March 26):

I suppose you have never had to fire anyone. I have, and it is not enjoyable in the least. In a business world, you have a responsibility to your shareholders and potential investors. These are the people who make your job possible, as well as those of other people employed by that company. So in the best interest of the company, policies are made to outline and to ensure continued growth and profitability. Allowing individuals to break these policies undermines the very foundation of the company. Depending upon the infraction and employee history hard choices have to be made. These are the choices that are entrusted usually to a HR department and managers. I don’t work for Cabela’s, but I am a manager and have to deal with these situations every day. I will guarantee you that the person who had to make that decision did not enjoy it. Letting people get away with violating policy makes policy worthless. So letting one person go could potentially save thousands of jobs and millions in investor funds. So just how many neighbors do you want without jobs?

I can see you are only interested in posting one side: yours. This only validates my impression of your rag. I hope [the fired individual] enjoys his new career as Reno’s imbecile editor of RN&R. So where will you be working, Brian? I hear the Blue Oyster is hiring. In fact, I hear there are several positions. I think you are best suited for pushing in stools. This was supposed to be funny, so please don’t be offended.

via email

Editor’s note: From time to time when circumstances seem to warrant it, the RN&R publishes anonymous letters. This is a combination of two anonymous letters from the same individual.