Letters

A math lesson for Michael Green

In Michael Green's Backstory column, "Who's Feeding at the Trough?" (March 18) he states that I was quoted in the Review-Journal as saying Professor Rawson voted for a 300 percent increase in state government. He implies in his next sentence that Professor Rawson is thus being lied about.

In fact, the R-J story (on March 4) quotes me as saying, "When I decided to run against him, it wasn't because he was conflicted, it was because he's deeply committed to expanding state government 300 percent faster than Nevada's expanding, and I'm not."

There is a big difference between a government's growth and a government's growth rate--a difference that appears to have entirely escaped Professor Green. Nevada's '02/'03 biennial general fund was $3.75 billion. Our '04/'05 biennial general fund is budgeted for $5 billion. The difference--$1.25 billion--represents growth of 33 percent. Nevada's sum of population growth and inflation for the same period is projected at 11 percent. Thus, the rate of growth of state government is increasing at a rate three times (or 300 percent) the rate that Nevada is growing.

He also contends that "the tax structure remains among the most ridiculous in the nation" in Nevada. Is he referring to the Tax Foundation ranking our per-capita tax burden at 13th of 51? (see www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal03.html)

My statement in the R-J is correct. I can only hope that Professor Green doesn't teach math, reading or journalism.

--Bob Beers, CPA,

Assemblyman, District 4

State's separation clause is crystal clear

Well, Professor Michael Green cranked up the smoke machine again in another attempt to distract us from the separation of powers doctrine ["Who's Feeding at the Trough?"]. This time he has chosen to "educate" us (you should excuse the expression) about inconsistencies in the Nevada Constitution. In what is now typical fashion, he blithely ignores the fact that there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the Nevada Constitution's separation clause, which states quite clearly that no one is permitted to function in more than one branch of government.

The separation doctrine is a radically liberal concept in which government is broken into its separate functions and those functions are then dispersed into as many hands as possible. Professor Green wants to teach us that the old way is better: consolidate and concentrate the different functions in fewer hands.

You don't have to be a history or poli sci professor to know that the old way has never produced anything but pain and misery for the mass of people no matter how well-intentioned its advocates may have been--or are.

Get the government employees out of elected office.

--Knight Allen

Beef up Metro crosswalk patrols

I applaud the police department for cracking down on drivers who don't respect crosswalks ["Dead Man Walking," March 11]. It's remarkable how impatient and unsafe Las Vegas drivers are. Even when trying to cross at an intersection where you have the "Walk" signal, you will be cut off again and again by drivers making right turns. Most of the time, making your intention clear isn't enough; if you don't step in front of oncoming traffic, you won't get an opportunity to cross at a busy intersection.

The way I see it, putting more officers on "crosswalk patrol" is a no-brainer. These aren't nuisance tickets they're writing; this has become a real safety and quality-of-life issue. Furthermore, this is a solution that actually brings in revenue. Put plainclothes officers (backed up by motorcycle cops) at busy crosswalks, and they'll be writing tickets all day, every day. The drivers who are ticketed certainly deserve what they get. The revenue from the tickets would more than offset the cost of hiring extra officers, which Metro desperately needs. And maybe after a few months, the streets of Las Vegas would become a lot more pleasant and less menacing.

--James Taylor

Wild horse policies have exacerbated problems

Re: George Knapp's article regarding wild horses ["BLM Dreams Up Another Lame Wild Horse Scheme," March 18]:

Will all due respect to Mr. Knapp's observations on wild horses and some new proposed policies, there are some missing historical facts. He leads the public to believe that these actions take place every day, shooting and maiming and destroying wild horse herds. They do not. Also, that ranchers are the problem; they are not. Lack of intelligent management is the problem. The national wild horse program is a joke; it has not helped the wild horses.

The problem is that BLM has been forced by people who love horses but don't know a thing about them to save every one, and to run a failure program which adopts out the young, keeps the old horses and provides for an aging herd with no new blood lines.

Before Wild Horse Annie and the BLM intruded, wild horses were managed by the ranchers and left to run. However, they weren't allowed to overpopulate or damage the resource. Nevada has the bulk of the nation's wild horse herd, and herds were managed with good herds in mind because we used them for our working ranch horses. Most of the ranchers in this state can say they used to get some of their working horses from wild horse herds. Now they are "natural" (translated as inbred) and the adoption process is burdensome, so the horses end up on welfare and languish in horse prison where horses waiting for adoption cost taxpayers thousands.

They have been allowed by crybaby politics to become a black eye to the BLM. To those of us who want good management of the resource, wild horses, which aren't culled, managed or even held responsible for resource damages, are a growing concern. BLM routinely penalizes the ranchers for wild horse impacts, and yes, they get very upset. The wild horses were a convenient tool used by the BLM to take away the living of the ranchers...problem is, the tool got out of hand, overpopulated and in drought is causing real damage to the land.

I would be surprised if the ranchers would like this responsibility dumped on them now because the herds are so out of control, so badly inbred and such a political football. No one wants to manage them--especially the BLM.

The emotions in relation to the real situation on the ground couldn't be more far apart. In drought like this, the only way the horses have water is if the rancher is still out on the land, and if he isn't, in times past, even though he had no reason to go out to check pumps, BLM forced ranchers to pump water for the wild horses at their own expense. That socialist requirement lost in court. So now the BLM wants to get rid of the responsibility since it can't force ranchers to support the federal horse herds. Does it not stand to reason if there isn't enough feed on the ground for cattle, there isn't enough for the horses? I know ranchers who haul hay and water to the wild horses to preserve their lives. No press covers that kind of activity.

The wild horse program, like most federal programs, has been ruined by lawsuit. Management by lawsuit of federal lands has resulted in degraded horse herds; overgrown and dying woodlands nationwide, with trees dying due to insect infestation, disease and overcrowding; watersheds at risk to natural disaster; loss in income to local governments because of grazing cuts powered by lawsuit, not intelligence; species in more danger than before because the land is managed to suit the most recent lawsuit win; and millions of acres of federal lands degraded not because of use, but because of nonuse and misuse facilitated by lawsuit.

Intelligence in management of federal lands is out the window. The agencies are afraid to do the right thing because Sierra Club, Western Watersheds or other dingbat groups can and do sue to pursue their special interests without any regard to health of the land.

The truth is, if it weren't for ranchers, the herds would have faded away long ago. The ridiculous notion that wild horses are some special or pure species is bunk. They are feral (once domestic) horses that have been romanticized into some sort of special status animal. Until the special laws to protect them came into place, ranchers put out our purebred studs to upgrade herds, sometimes a good purebred mare, and then we harvested some of the colts for ranch use. That all ended with the emotional wild horse management laws.

One hopes that feral dogs don't get special status someday.

--Shelley Hartmann,

Pioche, Nev.

Kerry heroism questioned

You mentioned John Kerry's Vietnam War and his "numerous medals for heroism" [Editor's Note, "Dirt Farming on the Campaign Trail," March 18]. Your article suggested that President Bush and "his cronies" would try to tarnish Kerry's war record. Apparently you take the "war hero" handle that Kerry's campaign staff trumpets daily at face value. I don't. And I don't need anyone's staff or cronies to see through the big lie of Kerry's "heroism."

As a Vietnam veteran who, unlike Sen. Kerry, actually served two tours "in-country," I am disgusted with the constant references to his "war hero" status. While I am willing to concede that Mr. Kerry had the courage to "show up," I am not at all convinced that the decorations bestowed upon him were either earned or appropriate.

My first tour in Vietnam was served as a "grunt" with the 5th Marines. The amount and intensity of combat we experienced far exceeded anything Mr. Kerry saw during his four months in harm's way. I personally witnessed countless acts of true courage on a daily basis, under the most dangerous of circumstances, which went wholly unacknowledged or rewarded. Why he was so highly and frequently decorated is a mystery to myself and many other combat veterans.

I, for one, will never forgive the senator's blatantly distorted and factually inaccurate testimony before Congress that slandered the tens of thousands who died and the hundreds of thousands who were wounded in that conflict. All but the smallest handful of military personnel served with honor throughout the war.

The enduring myths of the Vietnam War continue to be propagated by newspapers, journals and politicians in the face of long-established facts to the contrary. Mr. Kerry cannot escape responsibility for creating some of these myths and should be held to account for actions. To this day, he seems incapable of apologizing for the damage he did to those who participated in America's most difficult conflict and, indeed, to the country in general. It was Sen. Kerry's testimony and sophomoric rhetoric that helped divide our nation at a crucial point in its history. Vote for him? Not on your life!

--Richard Montgomery,

Palm Bay, Fla.

Why controversy over Gibson's Passion?

Why the incredible hullabaloo over The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson's film of Christ's suffering and death?

After all, the silver screen is awash with violence and mayhem, perversion and debauchery. Major Hollywood studios have no problem with churning out bloody splatterfests like the recently released Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake or Freddy vs. Jason. They revel in edgy television fare such as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," a special love-kiss to the militant homosexual lobby.

If you are a Hollywood director who wants to make a film that mocks, blasphemes and reviles Jesus Christ, you can be sure that the major studios will line up to bankroll and distribute it, and that critics will acclaim it. If you want to make a film that viciously portrays Catholic priests and nuns, Protestant ministers or Christian believers in general as ignorant buffoons, corrupt hypocrites or intolerant bigots, you can rest assured of media accolades for your penetrating social commentary. Submerge a crucifix in a jar of urine or create a painting of the Virgin Mary out of elephant dung and you will be praised for your artistic brilliance by the self-anointed arbiters of culture.

--Frank M. Pelteson

The Bible is pro-pot

As a cannabis activist and an obedient Christian, I question what John Walters says [Democracy in Peril, March 18] pertaining to cannabis since Christ, God Our Father, created cannabis and said all the seed-bearing plants are good on the very first page of the Bible.

Biblically, medically and recreationally, too many people use cannabis (kaneh bosm, before the King James Version) responsibly and are not accepting the government-subsidized, biblically discredited, cannabis prohibitionists' persecutions any longer.

It is time to stop caging humans who use cannabis and that includes American farmers who wish to grow hemp.

--Stan White,

Dillon, Colo.