Letters for September 23, 2010
You’re no good
Re “Sad story” (Letters to the editor, Sept. 16):
The letter “Sad Story” brought to mind a lesser-known song by Bob Dylan, called “What Good Am I?” that contains the stanza:
What good am I if I’m like all the rest
If I just turn away, when I see how you’re dressed
If I shut myself off so I can’t hear you cry
What good am I?
Rhonda L. Sheehan
Re “Departmental dispute” (News, Sept. 9):
I could not disagree more with one of the statements in the “Departmental dispute” article: “Many federal functions are not mentioned in the Constitution, which was not designed for such a purpose. The document is supposed to be a broad and general statement, not a catalog of all conceivable federal functions.”
This might be one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read about the Constitution. It could not be further from its actual meaning and intent. There is no gray area here. Read the Federalist Papers, written by the guys who wrote the Constitution. Any alternative point of view is just an individual expounding on how he knows what is best for other people and wants the government to help him force other people to do what he thinks is best for them. Also, referred to as tyranny.
The Constitution enumerates what the federal government may do: Anything not set forth therein is the right of the people and the states. It’s pretty simple to understand. Our Founding Fathers were very suspicious of centralized government, which is exactly why the Constitution is the way it is. The Constitution was written as a limitation of federal powers. If we have to have a government then let’s make it as small as possible. This is what allows Americans to be free. To rule themselves at a local level. Education is a great example. Who can actually believe George Bush or Nancy Pelosi know what is best for your child’s learning? Children are taught in their communities, not Washington, D.C.
Government by definition imposes limitations on citizens’ actions, thus decreasing freedom. Our Founding Fathers understood this concept, as they were not free men. They disliked this enough to risk their lives and fortunes (and many did lose both) for the opportunity to be free. Accordingly, when they set about to form a government, their one over-riding concern was limiting the scope of that government.
The reason our founding fathers did not like centralized government is they understood that government’s central purpose is to always expand. It’s like the Blob. This can be perfectly seen in the interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. Where our founding fathers wrote this clause to stop one state from discriminating against another state’s citizens, our Federal government has “interpreted” it to mean anything that touches two states is now under their authority. The result of this action clearly proves why it is wrong.
Under the current federal reading of the ICC there is basically no purpose in having a Constitution because everything is now under their purview through the ICC. California medicinal marijuana is subject to federal law because it “might” enter the stream of commerce and find its way to another state. Where does the federal government have any right to regulate drugs in the Constitution? They don’t, so they use the ICC. There is no limit to its powers now. Why write a document limiting the scope of the federal government if one clause invalidates all those limitations?
Rim and reason
Re “The best jade plans” (Foodfinds, Sept. 9):
I am always interested in your columns on food and places to eat—particularly where I don’t want to go. I am amused, as well, when Grant Nejedlo asks Kat where to go, and she says “Anywhere but Mexican!” and off they go—to such an establishment. I was rather delighted in the review on Rim: A Palais De Jade Restaurant. I thought I was being overly critical during my experience. We went within the first month of opening. On the day we went, the Vietnamese chef had just quit. The waitress informed us they did not have the lunch specials anymore. She also informed us that they had changed most of the other chefs during the month. She was quite knowledgeable about that kind of info, but as you indicated in your column, knew hardly anything about the menu. I wanted broccoli and beef. “Well,” she said, “I think we can make it?” I said, “What about the Kobe beef kabobs?” “No, we had to ban the Kobe beef.” On and on—so I settled for a glass of wine—at least that is what I ordered, but it was more a sample. My dining companion settled on sweet and sour chicken—the only thing he could understand that the waitress actually knew. It didn’t compare to another Asian restaurant we frequent. I won’t mention names, but their Chang ribs are excellent. We didn’t expect the Rim to last this long. Thanks for the review anyway. Good fortune.
Fire at will
Re “Float like a butterflop, sting like a pea” (Reviled & Revered, Sept. 9):
Mr. Barrette must have watched a different debate. What I saw was a contrast of priorities. Reid will make teachers his top priority. Sandoval will lay off teachers and divert money from the meager education budget to subsidize private schools for the well-to-do. His attack on “teacher tenure” was funny, given that teachers have no more tenure than any other public employees.
Re “Departmental dispute” (News, Sept. 9):
This woman [Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle] is certifiable! First one thing and then another to garner votes. SSI retirement is welfare, and then it’s not. It’s not her job to create jobs, and Nevadans who lost their jobs are “spoiled workers” when at 14 percent unemployed, we’re the highest in the nation. She hasn’t a clue nor does she care! Our “depression”—and it is a Depression—is the result of greedy bankers who have yet to punished, “Bushanomics,” and American jobs being sent overseas! Her positions are extreme, false and out of the ballpark! I only wish she were in our shoes … the real Nevadans scrambling just to support our families. And now, she wants to abolish the Board of Education (and we’re the lowest scoring schools in the nation) and alternative energy (which is creating jobs) and the EPA? I suppose we should all breath poison.
Mad as hell
Yes, I’m mad as hell, but I want nothing to do with the Tea Party.
The people behind the Tea Party movement are, in my opinion, Republicans who want to stir up hatred of a non-white, non-conservative, non-Republican president. They want a return to Bush and Cheney and their corrupt practices: Let the oil companies do anything they want (Have you noticed the Gulf of Mexico?); start an unprovoked war in Iraq (let’s do Iran next); let the banks do anything they want (foreclosing on people’s houses is fun), etc.
Yes, I’m mad as hell, but I refuse to be sucked into a movement to take us back to a puppet administration with Big Business pulling all the strings.