Thursday, January 29, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Letters

Buyer beware when considering Net learning

Your article, "Scholars and Scoundrels," (Jan. 22) about the varying degrees and standards of accreditation for distance learning schools, caught my eye, as I am a recent graduate of a distance learning course.

About three years ago, I researched various distance learning programs as I began pondering pursuit of a master's degree. I narrowed my list to six finalists and eventually selected the M.A. in Strategic Communication and Leadership program through SetonWorldWide, the online branch of Seton Hall University in South Orange, N.J. I based this decision largely on the reputation and name cachet of Seton Hall (established in 1856), but also on the fact that a real brick-and-mortar school supported the program--and indeed hosted three on-campus residencies during the course of study. I enrolled in the program and began classes in September 2001 and, after a brief interruption due to an interstate move, graduated with my master's degree on Jan.11, 2004.

To be honest, I am unsure what should be done to streamline the accreditation mess confronting various distance learning programs as described in your article. However, at the risk of sounding flippant, the old saw "caveat emptor" certainly applies. Also, I relate this situation to the demise of so many dotcom companies in the late '90s--many of those online-only businesses that failed did so because they did not have a brick-and-mortar presence to support them, unlike websites for major retail chains such as Sears, JC Penney, etc. By having a "real" campus in addition to its "virtual" counterpart, Seton Hall appealed to me and carried with it the accreditation I hoped for and expected before I enrolled.

I guess my advice for prospective students wishing to enroll in a distance learning program is to consider such realties before deciding whether to send your hard-earned tuition to a school that may exist solely in the virtual world.

--Thomas E. Bradley Jr.

War denunciation hits the mark

Thank you for printing this marvelous article! ["War Is the Ultimate Crime," Jan. 22]. Dr. Shelden has hit the nail on the head with precision accuracy. UNLV is quite privileged to have such a discerning and courageous professor. His students are blessed to be taught criminal justice by him. It's nice to know that Las Vegas is not all casinos and TV's "CSI." Your city has just elevated itself in my estimation. For what that's worth.

--B.J. Doucet,

Hogansville, Ga.

Times change context of 2nd Amendment

In his letter to the editor ["Pro-gun Dems Right on Target," Jan. 22], Dennis Hayward implied the Founding Fathers included our right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights because of the necessity to fight against an oppressive government. He may be right. That's probably what they were thinking. (However, I'm a little put off by the innuendo that it's all right to hunt politicians. Murder is still murder.)

It's postulated that we need guns in case the need comes up to rebel against our government. Go back to the Founding Fathers, those "freedom fighters" who rebelled against evil King George. They possessed the exact same "arms" as the British. All had single-shot, muzzle-loading, non-rifled, great big heavy guns. (Yeah, you could own a dueling pistol, but the average farmer/"freedom fighter" didn't have the money to buy one.)

Today, we've put a limit on the kind of "arms" an individual can possess. (I can't buy a thermonuclear device, can you?) If the revolution comes, what are you going to do when the "Army of One" comes knocking at your door? Have you seen the technology our guys have? Tanks, laser-guided missiles, night scopes, sights that shoot around buildings, not to mention their training.

God bless those wonderful young men and women. They will kill you before you answer the door. There won't be a reason to pry your Smith & Wesson from your hands. Your hands will be dead, they won't be cold.

When taken in the context of their time, the framers of the Constitution were wise and good men (although the many descendants of slaves and the aboriginal populations could rightfully take issue with that statement). However, this is the 21st century, not the 18th century. Times change.

The strength of our civilization is in our intelligence, our vigilance and in our continued faith in each other. Our protection from tyranny is in the voluntary adherence to law, and, most importantly, the guarding of the First Amendment protection of free speech. (That's why it was "first.") In some situations, times don't change.

No longer does individual gun ownership have anything to do with protecting our freedom. The ability of a citizen to possess a gun has been relegated to being a symbol of freedom. In fact, it may be a stronger symbol of freedom than our flag. (Try burning a gun.)

--Merritt Carlton

Let private sector into space race

It's been fully two years since George Knapp penned an impressive and insightful cover story in the Mercury ["The New Space Race," Jan. 17, 2002] on Bigelow Aerospace's ambitions for a commercial space manufacturing or space hotel station. As the Jan. 31 edition of Mr. Knapp's column indicated that year, the proposals drew attention at NASA itself.

Today there's an increasingly robust commercial space sector, which strains to emerge from beneath intractable and intolerant federal red tape--seemingly hellbent on maintaining its federal monopoly on all things in space.

Even as NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab basked in reflected glory of multiple missions to Mars, little mentioned is the industrial infrastructure that has converted plans and paper into flight-worthy hardware and on-board computers.

Fact is, NASA isn't the only organization in this country seeking advancements in robotic or human spaceflight. And many is the corporation in that business sector that has laid off "overqualified" professional engineers and scientists with their own multiple success stories on resumes that today overwhelm and threaten less worthies.

In his recent column ["Bush's Space Plan: Where's the Beef?"], two financial projections need clarification: For one, Mr. Knapp forgets the $10 billion of NASA program funding to be reallocated under the president's proposals, adding to the mere $1 billion cited in the article.

For two, the estimated $150 billion cited for a manned roundtrip to Mars is on the high end. The Russian space agency's estimate is less than one-tenth of that figure--from a former Cold War economy that paid its Soviet nuclear scientists and weapons engineers only U.S. $50-per-month salaries.

Space indeed deserves both our attention and our immediate action. But we must not restrict alternative options to solely the NASA track. Private sector alternatives should be unleashed faster and better. Strange that a political administration committed to privatization in other sectors would neglect that possibility today.

--David C. Phillips,

Mesquite