Letters for October 13, 2011
Of human bondage
Re “Me and Sheriff Joe Arpaio” (Right to Your Head, Oct. 6):
This is a blatant display of a useless pile of words. I live in Reno, Nevada. This sheriff, while controversial nationally, does not interest me in the slightest. I’m a member of the U.S. military. I have comrades in the reserve who returned from Afghanistan roughly six months ago who are currently struggling to feed their families because the career path they chose decades ago is no longer economically viable. Why is that? Because corporate greed has destroyed the economy. But what does the right winger from Reno want to talk about? A shmuck sheriff from Maricopa County, Arizona.
Donald Paul StocktonReno
Casey at the bat
Re “Eat the rich or they’ll eat you” (Apply Liberally, Oct. 6):
Casey O’Lear seems to have a problem with banks. So does the FDIC. They closed 74 banks, through September 2011. She wants to keep her money under a mattress. Try to rent a car with no bank account. Carry cash to pay the rent, go armed. Lea Moser complains that she doesn’t know anyone who has a career in the field that they studied. I studied Spanish in school. Does Lea know where I can get a career job with school Spanish? I studied English in school, although I never passed a single assignment. I have 32 published-for-pay novels and 18 published-for-pay short stories.They told me that Columbus discovered America, a total lie. The Northmen were here some five centuries before Columbus, documented in their sagas. In the 1960s, they found the ruins of Northman farm in Newfoundland. If O’Lear wants to protest, she should protest the Congress that raided Social Security to pay for bridges to nowhere. Protest the president and Congress who forced the banks to lend to those who couldn’t pay back the money. Protest the people who loaned Solyndra something like a half-billion dollars, just before they went bankrupt.
Re “Please remove Sean” (Letters to the Editor, Oct. 6):
Please don’t remove Sean. I don’t agree with most of what he writes, but I sure like him a whole lot better than Mike Lafferty because Cary doesn’t seem to be trying to shove it down my throat like Lafferty did. After the column of Oct. 29, I almost wrote Cary to thank him for writing something reasonable. After reading the comment of Mr. Harris, I’m sorry I didn’t.
Editor’s note: Mike Lafferty wrote his last column for this newspaper on Feb. 7, 2008. Sometimes, I still miss that guy.
Soldier in the Great War
Re “Holidays in Hell” (Feature story, Sept. 29):
Thank Paul Graham for the work that he and his colleagues do. Though we don’t know details, we folks in the States do appreciate the stress this job entails. I’m a retired operating room nurse as well as a former University of Nevada, Reno professor. I honor Graham’s family for standing by him. Trauma is no picnic, and I’m glad he was able to provide a context for those who don’t work in this environment. For those of us who have, thanks again for sharing with the rest of those not familiar with this work.
Marsha O’Lynn Sidwell-Fronefield
Letters from Paul
Re “Pandering to the basest of the base” (Right to Your Head, Sept. 29):
Interesting that Sean Cary’s “Pandering to the basest of the base” column was utilized to attack Dr. Ron Paul based on the audience’s reaction to questions posed by Blitzer. Also, he did this without considering the actual response to the debate question. He blows his horn that he is a Republican, but his article demonstrates not only a lack of integrity, and dishonesty, but knowledge of what an American is. He cleverly used President Ronald Reagan as camouflage for his purpose.
He wrote, “One would think a man who has taken the Hippocratic Oath would be horrified at this and react as such. Alas, Paul was silent.”
Cary’s purpose is clear. His statement is false. His failure to argue merits of Dr. Paul’s response to the relevant question speaks for itself.
Readers can view Paul’s actual response on YouTube.
An American tragedy
Re “Please remove Sean” (Letters to the Editor, Oct. 6):
I can remember when John McCain responded, quite vigorously and on camera, to an audience member who questioned Barack Obama’s patriotism. His was a proper and moral response. The sight of eight distinguished Republican candidates for president standing mute when audience members shouted that they wanted to let a sick person lacking insurance die was most improper and most immoral. Dr. Paul compounded the immorality when he shattered his Hippocratic Oath and violated the first tenet of his erstwhile profession: “First, do no harm.” His later comments that, basically, someone, somewhere, somehow may perhaps help this person, did no more than compound the gross insult to American morality offered by him and his colleagues, in front of the cameras, standing mute in the face of evil. While I disagree with Sean Cary on many points, and expect to on many more, in this instance he was spot-on.
No pussy for you
Re “Pussy galore” (Arts & Culture, Sept. 29):
Recently, I picked up a copy of the RN&R and noticed the article about Stewie the oversized cat. The article was titled, “Pussy Galore.”
I then reflected on the fact that your publication is distributed free of charge, in places where children can easily read it. (I happened to be in Keva Juice at the time.)
This made me wonder if the person, or people, responsible for giving the article that title cared how these factors together might affect the formation of young minds—and I still wonder.
At this point, the point where someone challenges someone else’s actions as insensitive or wrong, the common defense is, “You can’t infringe upon my freedom.” As one of the RN&R’s commonly used slogans is “Think Free,” I would naturally assume that to be the response in defense of that title.
The problem with that philosophy is that it is not complete; it is only half of the equation. The complete equation is, “Freedom, tempered with love.” Freedom is certainly an inherent right of being human, and one that should not be, can not be, denied. However, freedom that is not tempered by love always has the potential to hurt someone, and too often does.
Love, in this context, is the desire, or choice, to benefit somebody else at your own expense. The opposite of love is the desire, or choice, to benefit yourself at someone else’s expense. The exercise of freedom at someone else’s expense is not an act of love.
It is one thing to act in an unloving way toward another, or other, adults. But to do so at the expense of children is even worse.
I pass no judgment; however, I will certainly stand up to anyone who jeopardizes the well being of the kids in our community.
From here to eternity
Re “The Greatest” (Feature story, Oct, 6):
Thanks to Jake Highton. This is a great summary of the history of our media and the hypocrites who run/control not only our media but our country. To me, hypocrisy seems a universal problem. We need all the light that is available to be shining on this. It would help if society would reward those brave enough to come forward and tell the truth rather than shun and/or punish them. That tells me a lot about our society because I often wonder if what we have is simply a reflection of our society per se.
St. Davids, Penn.