Letters for June 7, 2007
Walk the talk
Re “Throttle the hyperbole” (Editorial, May 31):
As a long-time reader (1994), I often comment to my friends and cohorts on the quality and insightful perspective of your paper. Your editorial regarding the irritating use of hyperbole and inflamed rhetoric by politicians is much appreciated and surely a bull’s eye in exposing how far into the dung pits of fear we have allowed ourselves to be emotionally dragged. Thank you for bobbing to the surface and showing the sheeple a view of just how foul the soup of public service rhetoric has become. Get a grip, politicians, and stop feeding your egos with the fear of your constituents. It is just too easy to do that, and in using the constant fear drum, you do no more than perpetuate the sickness. Pay more attention to the RN&R!!
Fair treatment for all
There is no sane reason not to support the Matthew Shepard Act (S. 1105). It’s a long overdue bill to expand hate crimes to include violent attacks based on a victim’s gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability - real or perceived - basically to fully prosecute anyone who violently and physically attacks a person based on who they are. It also provides funding to help law enforcement investigate and prosecute these crimes. It does not prosecute thoughts or free speech, as some people mistakenly seem to believe, only physical violence.
One in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This is an opportunity to uphold equality and provide protection across all lines—gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It’s not special treatment, it’s fair and deserved treatment for every American. Although it is named after Matthew Shepard, it covers violent acts against many different kinds of people—females, Mexicans, Muslims, veterans, disabled people, everyone, not just homosexuals. No one deserves to be attacked without provocation, based on prejudiced or sexist bias, and this law will ensure that this type of violent criminal is punished to the fullest extent. It is important that everyone let his or her congressmen know to support this legislation.
Laughing to the bank
Re “Hurts to laugh” (Editorial, May 24):
Your recent editorial on gas prices was nearly sobering.
I sold my car five years ago and bought a brand new quiet four-stroke moped—out the door at just over two grand.
No insurance, tags, plates or helmet required—just paid my cash and scooted.
You can get one on time for about 60 bucks a month, less than some folks pay for a weekly fill-up on the gas-hog.
At 90 miles per gallon, that’s well under 4 cents a mile.
Just changed the oil today, took half a quart to fill it up.
Not having to pay insurance, tags, high gas prices and all that crap is saving probably a full day’s work a week.
A day a week over the last five years is the equivalent of a 52-week vacation. That’s 10 weeks a year. In fact, I took a year off in ‘06. It was wonderful.
When gas gets to $5 a gallon, it’ll cost just over a nickel a mile—a buck a day to work and back. Five bucks a week. Think about that next time you fill up, oil is not going to get any cheaper, or more plentiful.
And to those worried about looking like a nerd on one, personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass about snickering.
I snicker right back as I legally pass on the right, while they’re behind an interminably long line of antiseptic, planet-killing cars.
I snicker all the way to the bank.
It paid for itself the first year, and the rest is all savings.
No hot car to get into in summer, and no problems ever finding a parking spot. AND, there’s room under the seat and on the floorboard for a couple of bags of groceries.
Out in the open, no roof, enjoying nature, free.
Ah, life is good.
Re “Carson City liberals hurt their economy” (Right Hook, May 24):
You’re probably getting tired of receiving letters criticizing Mike Lafferty’s columns, but I’ll have to add another one.
His current column boasts in large type, “Carson City liberals hurt their economy,” and goes on to bemoan the loss of Max Baer’s new casino to Douglas county. Yet reading and rereading every word, I found something missing: ANYTHING relating the city’s decision to stonewall Baer’s casino to liberals! It starts with a quote from the loathsome Ann “the man” Coulter doing her usual “Liberals are the devil and worse” shtick and ends with Lafferty claiming to have tied the casino decision to her quote somehow, yet, the entire column is devoid of ANY shred of information that would make that so.
The funny part is that, in this instance, I completely agree with Lafferty’s column, minus the “liberal conspiracy” conclusion. The decision to deny Jethro his casino and the badly needed jobs and taxes was asinine. But if you’re going to blame it on a group of people, you need a little something called “evidence.”
Editor’s note: Sorry, you can’t blame Hook for the headline. Editors write those things.