Letters for November 3, 2005
You might be funny
Re “You might be a liberal if” (Right Hook, Oct. 20):
You might be Mike Lafferty if …
• You believe Mike Brown’s incompetence and George Bush’s cronyism are examples of an over-bloated government.
• You believe George Bush showed fiscal responsibility by turning a budget surplus into the largest deficit in history.
• You believe “support the troops” means prostrating yourself before Bush.
• You call abortion clinic bombers pro-life activists.
• You shout about tax cuts, then bitch when you run over a pothole.
• You believe Germany and France act solely out of economic interests, while our only interest is spreading freedom and democracy.
• You think our invasion of Iraq was anything but George Bush wanting to get Saddam Hussein.
• You believe George Bush is the bestest and most specialest president ever.
Re “Sticker shock” (News, Oct. 20):
Where do you start after a news story like this? Is there a jury person in Northern Nevada who has had a good purchasing experience with a “reputable” dealer who is not prejudiced from the get go?
Has anyone ever had a car salesman tell them, “Whoa, let’s review your situation and perhaps reconsider an agreement which may better suit your needs"? You’ve overturned a can of worms. I bet that you can do a minimum of one, no, make it ten stories a week, of folks unfairly taken advantage of by the local car dealers due to the lack of competition.
Re “Yank their licenses” (Letters, Oct. 20):
What has happened to this country? Why would a rule [allowing pharmacists to decide what drugs they’ll dispense] like this even be entertained? The burden for health services is already on the patients, medicines are growing exponentially in price, and time is critical when under a doctor’s care.
For those pharmacists who want to deny prescriptions based on their personal morals and beliefs, I say this: Open your pharmacies in churches, so the public will know which pharmacy to attend, tithe to or avoid. Enough is enough.
More diversity, please
Re “The new feminists” (News, Sept. 29):
I would first like to express my appreciation for the cover story on feminism. I thought it was very well planned out, and it’s not every day that women are given an opportunity to talk about how they are doing something for the issue of gender and equality.
However, all but one of the articles were written by English teachers, and I feel this is misrepresentative. What they wrote was quite true and touching, but it seems to say that only educated women can do something about [problems faced by women].
And while I don’t totally disagree, the consensus seems to be that articles written by teachers are very opinionated and are not taken as seriously. In fact, I had a person tell me the other day that when he sees article after article written by teachers, it makes him think that they know everything about the topic, and whatever someone else might say is wrong.
So perhaps if there were a wider variety of writers, this piece would have more effect. And, in the future, you might take this into account.
These kinds of articles are, after all, about diversity and embracing it.
Editor’s note: RN&R columnist and contributor Deidre Pike wrote the entire story. It may be that a closer examination of the article will be enlightening.
As conference committees meet to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and the Defense Department Appropriations bills, I urge citizens to push for the inclusion of key provisions of the Senate bills in their final versions.
Although the Senate version of the Patriot Act Reauthorization bill fails to correct a number of serious civil liberty problems in the USA PATRIOT Act, it is a positive step toward correcting the imbalance present in current law between protecting national security and preserving civil liberties. Corrective provisions include sunsetting two surveillance power provisions in 2009, six years earlier than the House’s version; limiting delayed notice of a section 213 “sneak and peek” search to seven days; and requiring a statement of facts for a secion 315 secret search, and requiring a nexus between that reasoning and a suspected terrorist.
Sen. McCain’s amendment to the Defense Department Appropriations bill provides clear, unambiguous interrogation standards to guide our military personnel in their treatment of prisoners in an effort to end abuses like those that occurred recently in prisoner of war camps.
Please push for these important provisions to be included in the final versions of the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and Defense Department Appropriations bills.