Letters for July 14, 2005

Got logic?
Re “Don’t sit on the fence” (Right hook, July 7):

Please cancel the column by Michael Lafferty and replace it with a conservative voice who will offer substance and logical arguments. Lafferty’s columns offer neither. Every column that he writes follows the same basic formula. 1) Note, at length, that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong. 2) Point to one liberal policy that has failed (or hasn’t failed, but claim that it has without offering evidence) as sweeping evidence that progressive politics do not work. 3) Remind the audience that conservatives are right. Really, his columns read like they should be printed in The Onion. Reno is a growing community with many conservative voices. Could you please find one who can right a passable, five-paragraph essay?

Scott Herbst

Enough drama
Re “The next stage” (Theater, June 30):

Oh, geez. Another theatre starts in Reno. Another outsider who’s trolled around the different companies and not been voted queen starts a new thing. Plans are to do “new works dealing with current issues as well as classic theatre.” Hello. We have the Nevada Shakespeare Company already! They do new works and classics. Theatre classes and programs for kids and adults? Hasn’t Brüka been doing that for a decade?

Josie Warvelle

View from the East
Re “Why is life in Nevada so lousy?” (Cover story, June 23):

Kudos to Dennis Myers for once again bringing up the most obvious truth about Nevada—that its quality of life is awful and that few are willing to address it. The reasons for Nevada’s problems aren’t too surprising. The “I-love-it-here” type of boosterism is a main enemy because it encourages complacency and denial. Also, Nevada doesn’t really attract many of the kind of people who can or will change things for the better. And when such people do show up, they’re not often heeded or even encouraged to stay. (I lived in Reno for seven years and still believe it revels in its aggressive seediness, underachievement and low aspirations, as if failure made the locals tougher and was some sort of virtue.) I’d certainly like to see Nevada change, even though I’m not there—but it does seem regrettably comfortable with its lousiness.

Lance Bernard
Minneapolis, ex-Reno

I ♥ Nevada
Re “Why is life in Nevada so lousy?” (Cover story, June 23):

I admit to picking up the paper because of the negative headline. I couldn’t believe that someone actually thought Nevada was a lousy place to live. Believe me there are 49 other states that I would not care to live in. I do not consider them to be lousy places to live but Nevada has amenities that outweigh living in the others.

High on my list is a moderate tax rate, a reasonable government, a good infrastructure, and decent ordinances governing property. My one criticism would be directed against strip zoning with little thought given to a central downtown in the majority of cities.

Most of the problems reflected in the article can be solved by creating meaningful jobs that will give people pride and stability in their lives.

Nevada is a wonderful place to live. Take another look.

Robert Griggs
Via e-mail

How low can you go?
Re “Why is life in Nevada so lousy?” (Cover story, June 23):

[Dennis Myers] ignores the great aspects that are exclusive to this state—casinos providing a healthy economy and low cost of living—and heads straight for the negative. Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the article is Myers’ inane ramblings about “native pride.” How can those not of Native American descent refer to themselves as anything other than what they are—permanent visitors? This is perhaps the single most offensive thing I have ever read in the News & Review. For a newspaper that tries ever so hard to be politically motivated and socially conscious, this is an extreme oversight. You’ve reached a new low. For shame.

Amanda Rodriguez

Jesus skates Sparks
I skateboard at Burgess Park frequently, but only recently have I noticed the large display of The 10 Commandments in the middle of the park. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of keeping a similar monument on the Texas capitol grounds, but against allowing one in a Kentucky courthouse. So the Sparks display is probably constitutionally legal, but it still risks offending citizens in the community. It makes a statement that Sparks is a Christian city. I am sure Sparks doesn’t have an established religion as America doesn’t, so I don’t think the city should represent a set of religious values. The City might even find itself in an expensive legal battle with taxpayer money. I am amazed that the city of Sparks would risk controversy and offending their own citizens. Religion belongs in America’s churches and homes, not in public parks.

Colin Dougherty