Letters for July 15, 2010

Family ties

Re “Rory 2010 is a disguised Daddy Morebucks” (Reviled & Revered, July 8):

Here we go again with John Barrette leaping on his right wing horse, which he really should ride off into the sunset. His column about Rory Reid is a nasty personal attack, which is par for the course with Republicans. That, along with ignoring facts, a.k.a. the big lie. There is no doubt in the minds of many voters that Rory Reid’s education plan, The Leading Edge, is a thoughtful, innovative, fiscally prudent plan. Rory understands that there will be no economic development in Nevada without good schools, from K-12 through the higher education system. He is the candidate, not only for our children, but for our future, and our children are our future.

Look at his opponent. No, I will not use his name. Rory’s education plan was published, and then three months later, out comes his opponent’s plan, liberally based on Rory’s. There has been a good comparison done on the two plans. Barrette did not do his homework, and I will not tell you where you can find the comparison. Reid’s opponent also proposes using vouchers, known as my tax dollars, for private schools. Not acceptable. Rory is an experienced administrator with a pragmatic approach to solving the horrendous problems facing our state. His opponent has a beautiful smile, walked away from his lifetime appointment as a federal judge to run for governor.

Rory Reid not only talks the talk, he walks the walk, and has what it takes to face the state’s problems as our next governor.

Barrette’s right wing bias has a habit of getting in the way of factual reporting.

Martha Gould

Look deeper

Re “Reform Nevada’s schools” (Letters to the editor, July 1):

Reader/writer Catherin Schelling writes that “it’s despicable that less than half our students are graduating from high school,” and she finds the fact equally appalling “that only one candidate for governor has been saying anything of substance about these cruel facts.” Then she mentions “the other guy, the Republican” who has “said nothing, despite the painfully obvious issues with our kids’ schools” except that “he wants vouchers, which would have no impact on the quality of schools for the vast majority of kids in this state.”

May I call the attention of the readers to a third candidate, Gino DiSimone, who has a very substantial plan to address this issue and many others: www.ginoforgov.com?

Stephanie Gabler
Carson City

A conversation

Re “Good works” (Filet of Soul, June 24):

I just read your article on prayer and felt the need to write in. You covered many aspects of prayer in a rather brief article, which is impressive. As a rather religious person who has prayed much of his life, I think there’s something you either didn’t have space for or perhaps haven’t thought about (at least in regards to writing the piece). For me, prayer has not been an opportunity to ask or hope for things not seen or out of reach, but a much needed time to meditate and search myself and to communicate with God. It is a time to reach outside myself to Heavenly Father, or less specifically to my beliefs, to the powers that be, the beyond, however you might put it. I think it can be a very powerful and needed part of a spiritual life. The bookends of my day are prayers of gratitude and humility. I think asking for very specific blessings is a big part of prayer. That aspect of it you covered well. I’ve enjoyed your articles for some time, thanks.

Adam Soto
via email

Difference being?

Re “Censor family news” (Letters to the editor, July 1):

In the July 1 issue, you published my letter to the editor under the headline of “Censor family news.” With my question, “Was it really necessary to use that language in what is arguably a family newspaper?” you chose to attempt to denigrate my question with the headline and editor’s note by repeating the explicit word that the letter was all about. As to the headline, “Censor family news,” please allow me to provide the definition of censor: 1. An official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds. 2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others. 3. an adverse critic; faultfinder. 4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals. 5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.

It seems that your anti-establishment views as the editor of an alternative newspaper have caused you to jump to conclusions that are not in evidence. My question was to request an answer as to why your newspaper found it necessary to use the language it did, not that it should not be allowed to do so. I have no power over the language you use, nor am I in favor of censorship other than perhaps self-censorship.

Fred Speckmann

Editor’s note: Your implication that members of this staff should censor news or words or photos or ideas based on some other family’s sense of propriety is a bit offensive. Sorry if you felt denigrated, too.

Don’t censor news

Re “Censor family news” (Letters to the editor, July 1):

Thank you for your editor’s note on the letter titled “Censor family news.” The First Amendment rules! I always like when my day gets better when I read the first page.

Yvonne Aaronson
via email

We are family

Re “Censor family news” (Letters to the editor, July 1):

I don’t get into town much, but when I do, I like to pick up a copy of RN&R to see what’s what. Imagine my surprise when I discovered through Fred Speckmann’s letter that RN&R is a “family newspaper.” Used in such context, your generous advertising standards, spicy classifieds, and infinitely creative writing give the term, “family” a whole new meaning.

Keep up the good work. You make coming to Reno worth the hassle.

Jeanne Dansby
Portola, CA

True that

Re “GOP Light” (Feature story, June 17):

Kudos to Dennis Myers. That is what the Democratic Party has morphed into: “GOP Light.” The Party traditionally got their support and money from the workers: Unions. But they stood by and watched as business interests slowly gnawed away at unions until their membership declined to less than 10 percent of the workers. The money was drying up, so Bill Clinton looked elsewhere. Why should the GOP be the only party to get in bed with corporate interests? So, now we have a fascist state with both parties sleeping with the worker’s enemy, whoring away while the workers are given platitudes about hope and change and are thrown a sop now and then like health-care reform. This is the real definition of fascism: a blending of political and corporate interests, values and systems into a nation.

The enabler of this whole mess is the Supreme Court, the most powerful branch of our government. They created this corporate personhood fiction, everything stems from that. They have screwed the people so many times in the past, and they are given a free ride in the press. Why is that? Why are they sacred? John Roberts never met a corporation he didn’t like. Check his record!

Tom Skowronski