Thursday, March 06, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Letters

County dust control program is rigorous

Thank you for the mentions of the county's Department of Air Quality Management in your Feb. 13 edition. Air Pollution Control hearings typically don't attract much media coverage and neither do the efforts of our department's enforcement staff who are working hard to bring the valley into compliance with national air pollution control standards for dust. In 2002, our staff of 18 field compliance officers conducted a record 7,465 inspections at valley construction sites and assessed more than $626,000 in dust permit violation penalties. Most of the money collected from fines goes to the Clark County School District.

In recent years we have made significant strides in controlling construction-related dust through a combination of stepped-up enforcement efforts and increased awareness and cooperation from the local construction industry. Southern Nevada is now recognized as having one of the most rigorous dust control programs in the country.

As you also reported, our department recently installed a new hotline, 385-DUST, for residents to call to report sources of blowing dust. You mentioned that I encourage people not to call on really windy days because by then "it's really too late for us to do much." I understand space constraints probably limited you from printing my entire statement, so I'm hoping in this letter you'll let me clarify that on days with severe winds it's virtually impossible for field officers to track the source of disturbed desert dirt and debris. We encourage people to call the hotline on days with winds under 15 mph because compliance officers will be far more likely to be able to find the source, whether it's from construction or off-road activities on vacant lots--another major contributor to our valley's dust problems.

--Christine Robinson,

Director,

Clark County Department

of Air Quality Management

History shows need to act against Iraq

Re: "My Verdict Is In" (Editor's Note, Feb. 20), I appreciate that you wrote an intelligent opinion explaining your opposition to Bush's Iraq policy without resorting to the reactive cliche "it's all about oil."

That doesn't mean I agree. I don't think the editorial board of the New York Times is right on this matter, either, and when Nicholas Kristof says "our invasion will lead thousands of young Arabs to join Al Qaeda," that's like predicting that deposing Hitler in 1945 would've caused thousands of German-speakers to join the Nazi Party. Getting rid of the dictators and organizations that equip terrorists is the key.

As for Greg Brown's column presenting the French viewpoint as conditioned by the horrors of war, the East European nations suffered even more from World War II than the French did (and more than that from Soviet occupation), and they'd rather support Bush than Chirac. Another country that opposes France over use of force in Iraq is Spain. Of course, one reason Spain had to live under Franco for decades is because the only anti-fascists who would oppose his takeover were the Soviets and a few fellow-traveler individuals in the West, and they weren't enough. Western governments--even left-leaning France--didn't lift a finger when they had the chance.

Indeed, this speaks to the whole problem. At roughly the same time as the Spanish Civil War (1936), Hitler was rearming the Rhineland. Now, when France WAS the major military power in the West, when it was the leading force in the League of Nations, and it had every moral and legal authority (under the Versailles Treaty) to use force on Hitler--and with far fewer casualties than they recieved in 1940--they refused to do anything.

So when France didn't take action in its own defense against fascism on its own borders when it HAD power, why expect a reduced France to care about Americans in New York, Australians in Bali or Arabs in the Middle East?

Look, Bush certainly isn't the best spokesman for human rights, and I don't like the idea of dictating to every country on Earth as though we WERE the United Nations, but when evil does exist and it must be confronted (either diplomatically or militarily), why does the rest of the world look to the United States at least as often as the United Nations for solutions? Is anyone else either able or willing?

--James Gillen

Emotion succumbs to logic in Williams case

The Jessica Williams case sadly involves the tragic death of six young people, but District Judge Michael Douglas has done Nevadans a fine service by adhering to logic over emotion when finding that the legal carboxylic acid might be an improper per se gauge of impairment or intoxication due to the substance's legality (Knappster, "Judge in Williams' Case Has Watermelon Cojones," Feb. 27).

I wish to raise another potential flaw with the process testing for marijuana. Carboxylic acids, which we've established are legal, occur naturally in many organisms and are primary components of your DNA. Thus, is the carboxylic acid in question in Williams' case solely a metabolite of marijuana?

If the answer to the above question cannot be scientifically proven to be yes, the legal carboxylic acid in Williams' blood could have an innocent reason for its presence. Can she or anyone else be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if this legal carboxylic acid test does not test solely for a metabolite of marijuana?

Now, I am not suggesting that Williams escape punishment for the potential crime of falling asleep and driving onto the highway shoulder into children unsafely placed there by the government (if this action is a crime and Williams is proven guilty in a court of law), but I do believe Williams may not deserve a 48-year jail sentence for the mere presence of something in her blood that may have an innocent justification.

--Aaron M. Clemens,

Washington, D.C.

Don't call King's X a Christian band

Re: "X-Men," Feb. 27: It has always and ONLY been the press that refers to King's X as a "Christian band," metal or otherwise. While all the members at various points considered themselves to be Christians and/or played in Christian bands, King's X was from the outset NOT a "Christian band" or project for the members. Not to mention that Doug Pinnick has NOT proclaimed himself an atheist, he has only walked away from his old Christian-based beliefs and stated that he's now unsure if there even is a creator. Someone searching, or unsure, or whatever, is not the same as someone who IS an atheist (or IS anything else for that matter). It would be nice to see someone in the press (especially the alternative press) get that right for once; but I guess that wouldn't sound as hip and extreme as "atheist in a Christian band" would it?

--Loren Sanders,

Milwaukee, Wis.

The South rises again

Your paper's review of Gods and Generals [Feb. 27] shows what is wrong with education in America. This is not a film about slavery. Yes, children, it is possible to have a film on the Civil War without a political discussion of slavery.

This is a story about military history, children. I think it would be possible to write about the modern-day press without a discussion of yellow journalism and William Randolph Hearst, would it not? How about a story about Las Vegas without a discussion of organized crime? Possible? I take it by now you get my point?. Remember, as Clint Eastwood said, "a man's got to know his limitations." If you know nothing of history, don't try to write about it.

--Rex Hunter Wheatley Jr.,

Raleigh, N.C.

Regarding Bob Grimm's review of the movie Gods and Generals, I have to agree with the last sentence in his review that makes reference to his "sorry ass"!

Try as I might, that is the only sentence contained in his sophmoric (or was that "freshman") screed that I could agree with.

Sonny Boy Grimm is quite evidently the result of a publicly supported education system that teaches that the Pilgrims discovered America, while Africans were flying around the Pyramids on wings.

Does he have any skills in the fast food industry ?

--Wm. R. Forlines

Bob Grimm's review of Gods and Generals reveals that he is totally ignorant of history and a man consumed by hate. In my opinion, the movie rates 10 stars. As an American with ancestors who fought on both sides, I have to commend Ron Maxwell and Ted Turner for such an accurate portrayal of this tragic and needless war. This is truly a groundbreaking film that far surpasses all of Hollywood's previous attempts to put the Civil War in movie form.

--Russell J. Ottens,

Tifton, Ga.

They say you can judge one by his enemies. Though I have (thank God) never met Grimm, it is obvious that we are enemies--I feel very proud of that fact.

The only thing he said in his review that was correct was about his "sorry ass." A more accurate description of Grimm probably can't be made. He deserves the cesspool of Las Vegas and it deserves him!

Get this man a history book!

--Leland Hamner,

Texas

Your review of Gods and Generals is as weak as your knowledge of American history. You are clearly out of your element in trying to critique this movie. Your employer would probably do well to find another area in which to use your abilities, if there are any.

For want of time, space and energy, please allow me to expound upon only your opening and closing lines.

In a relatively well-known document known as "Lincoln's First Inaugural Address," please study Lincoln's passages in which he acknowledges Congress passed the amendment to the Constitution that states: "The federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service." Lincoln further endorses this legislation in his address quite succinctly by stating: "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." So, Mr. Grimm, I politely submit to you the historical facts which bear out that slavery was no more an issue in 1860 than the topic of abortion is in 2003.

For factual and historical insight regarding the BIG issues of 1860, please refer to the Morrill tariffs (which actually precipitated secession) and the associated precursors, the "Tariffs of Abominations," of 1828 and 1832. Again in the inaugural address, Lincoln states: "there needs be no bloodshed or violence," "no invasion or using of force against the people" so long as his government can "collect the duties and imposts." He said this before the War of Northern Aggression, before the War for Southern Independence.

As for your closing line, I concur with your assessment of yourself. You said it best, truly you are a "sorry ass"!

--Spence Morgan