Letters for December 27, 2001

Some thoughts on Nick Aguilera’s recent letter. He asks how we can ask for safety and expect our government to provide it. Last time I looked that was one of the primary functions of government: Providing for the defense of our nation and its people. He uses the old argument that we are giving up our freedoms in exchange for this safety. What freedoms have we given up? As far as I can tell the only changes that might affect citizens have to do with temporary expansion of powers for law enforcement to help them move more quickly against terrorism. This is an acceptable trade-off for most Americans.

He states that the government “takes away our liberties with the consent of the people, because the people fail to rise up and open their eyes to the real threat.” Has it occurred to him that consent suggests agreement? Maybe no one’s rising up because most of us don’t see a threat here.

He says he “dares” to call our government a “terrorist.” It’s easy to bravely dare to speak out when he lives in a country where the very government he so hates protects his right to speak his mind without consequences.

Perhaps he missed the real conspiracy here, the one involving hateful oppressive fanatics who hate our freedom and seek to destroy it. A little hint for Mr. Aguilera, they don’t work for our government.

Jim Young
Reno

…or not
Re “Freedom’s Enemy” [RN&R Letters, Dec. 13]:

I agree completely with Nick Aguilera’s letter.

M. Gibson
via e-mail

Bring back ratings
My husband and I moved to Reno about five and a half years ago. One of the things I quickly discovered upon moving here—being that we are restaurant nuts—was RN&R’s weekly column devoted to rating local restaurants.

We quickly learned, after a waitress at one local restaurant “sloshed” my drink all over her hand and then licked her hand all over and commented on how good my drink tasted, that we were “not in Kansas anymore.”

Not only did RN&R have recommendations on quality places to dine (many of which have become our local favorites), but we also learned the places to avoid. The latter seems to be missing in recent issues. While the new column focuses on simply good places to eat, it seems lacking without the occasional mediocre or avoid-this-place-at-all-costs review.

Is this because some of the local restaurants were upset over poor reviews?

Your restaurant ratings are valuable to those of us constantly looking for new and unique places to eat as well as places to avoid! Please reinstate the rating system on your dining guide!! :)

April Carman
via e-mail

Bring back ratings II
Re “Fabulous French” [RN&R Food Finds, Dec. 13]:

One of the sections of the Reno News & Review I always looked forward to was your review on local restaurants. The articles were usually concisely written, to the point (i.e. the food and service) and gave a “ranking” to the establishment.

This was totally different from the other local papers. They always seemed to give glowing reports to every place the reporters ate in. I assumed the other papers were influenced by advertising dollars that they hoped to glean from said restaurants or the casinos they are located in.

Your recent reviews read more like a novel than a critique. I really do not care if Christina learned Russian and Spanish. I do not care about goats/chickens/cats in the area; I do not really care who she is eating with and if they can speak French. Or if she is afraid of sounding like an uneducated American!

I sincerely wonder how many Americans in the World Trade Center could not speak French, and therefore, would be considered ‘dead or maimed uneducated Americans'?

I want to know if the food was any good, and how it compared to a standard of fine or acceptable dining.

I am sorry that you (the RN&R) have joined ranks with the other papers in Reno in a novelette approach to reviewing restaurants. Oh, I did single out the Dec. 13 issue, but this has been going on for some time!!

Ted Higgins
Reno