Letters for February 4, 2016
Re “Mandatory minimum terrorism” (Let freedom ring, Jan. 21):
The misinformnation and spin (’rifling’) in this Freedumb Ding is noteworthy. Malheur is a wildlife refuge, not a preserve and these terms have real meaning. The CCF seems more into CCW, no?
Twisting this takeover into a rant about mandatory minimums belies the real issues, which are policies- not politics. There is no reporting that suggests the agency (Fish and Wildlife Service) has “harassed” any ranchers.
Parley first, posse later.
I suggest the armed takeover isn’t much different than McVeigh or the Wacos when it comes to domestic terrorism—they are armed and on the fringe, right? It pains me to see these dullards sitting at a real working desk of a wildlife professional.
Throw the book at these Mormon crickets, assay.
I love your paper and its advertising. I do have a bone to pick with the Nevada Right to Life ad on the back page of the RN&R [Jan. 21]. Now that the Texas supreme court has ruled all these statements they make about Planned Parenthood as totally false doesn’t this organization have a responsibility to be truthful?
I know this is not your ad, but it is a blatant lie and as Planned Parenthood found cancer in my breast when I was in my 20s that probably saved my life—I’m 58—I resent such slandering lies about this organization. I believe in freedom of speech, not freedom to lie.
So now that money equals (buys) speech according to Citizen United per the Supreme Court of the United States, the full page advertisement on your back page (volume 21, issue 49) provided your paper with lots of money to spread vile, disgusting lies to the public. News flash: Along with dozens of other state attorneys’ general, Texas’s attorney general has exonerated Planned Parenthood via the grand jury and indicted the videographers. Trust me, if they could have indicted PP, they would have loved to. But they couldn’t, ’cause it didn’t happen.
I believe in free speech, but would discourage papers from publishing demonstrable lies just for the revenue. I discourage abortion but would leave that choice to the woman and her doctor because it’s none of my business. So the question is: Will you print this in your letters column or do I have to purchase advertising space? We have already agreed on your role, now we’re just haggling over price.
Editor’s note: We do not use the forum provided by this newspaper to prescribe what is error in politics. That would put us in the position of also deciding what is truth. We would not accept advertisements for harmful products, but that is commerce, not politics, which is pure speech. The same applies to government, by the way, which is not permitted under federal law to tamper with the content of political commercials that are carried by government-regulated broadcast stations. Those commercials must run exactly as candidates produce them, complete with error or prejudice. We trust the public will sort it out in the marketplace of ideas, as these readers did. Incidentally, the attorney general of Texas did not clear Planned Parenthood, a grand jury called by the lieutenant governor did. Attorney General Ken Paxton said after the grand jury’s action, “The fact remains that the videos exposed the horrific nature of abortion and the shameful disregard for human life of the abortion industry.”
Several news stories in the past few months have shown pharmaceutical companies abusing their ability to increase drug prices without an explanation. As a result, many presidential candidates are talking about these injustices and prompting congressional investigations. During the Democratic debate Sen. Sanders brought up an important point—one out of five seniors cannot afford prescribed medicines that are used to treat diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry rakes in billions with a very low proportion of profit going into research and development to improve current drug therapies.
Indeed, companies should be able to make a reasonable profit, but healthcare is an industry that is supposed to be ethical. However, this is not the case. As a neuroscience undergraduate at the University of Nevada, Reno this is concerning, because I aspire to have a career as a research scientist. I want to make discoveries that would help people with neurological diseases. However, for people to benefit from such a discovery pharmaceuticals should be an affordable price, not something out of reach for people who need it. I am glad many candidates are still talking about the topic and hope they continue to through the general election.
Re “Fighting the future” (cover story, Jan. 21):
In referencing net metering legislation at the 2003 Nevada Legislature, we described its sponsorship incorrectly. It was sponsored by legislators Lynn Hettrick, Jason Geddes, Joseph Hardy and Ron Knecht. David Bobzien sponsored measures in 2007 and 2013. In addition, a Bobzien statement that “the perception that they weren’t always taking into account the larger purposes, particularly renewable energy” was a reference to the state Bureau of Consumer Protection, not the Public Utilities Commission. Our apologies.
Re: “Rock’n caucus” Jan 28):
The Democratic caucuses will be held on Feb. 20, not Jan 20. The Republican caucuses will be held on Feb. 23, not Jan. 23.