Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion
Feb. 19, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

LETTERS: Columnist living in the 19th century

To the editor:

In his Sunday column, Vin Suprynowicz continues his ongoing tirade against public education ("Locking our children away from the real world").

While it is true that we Americans have been fortunate to have had some very talented men and women lead our nation as politicians, inventors and captains of industry, it is also true that we live in a different time. To suggest that, as I understand his argument, children do not need 12 years of education, ignores the fact that we no longer live in either an agrarian or manufacturing-based economy.

By and large, children no longer work on family farms in hopes of taking over upon their parents' death, and the concept that someone can expect to work on an assembly line for 30 years and retire with a comfortable pension has become a relic of a bygone era.

Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Ignoring the court
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'You've a gun on your T-shirt'
  • LETTERS: An incredible imbalance in salaries
  • ERIN NEFF: Gibbons and the sweetheart deal
  • LETTERS: Blame the doctor, not the messenger
  • LETTERS: No free lunch with green solutions
  • EDITORIAL: The death of common sense
  • FROM OUR READERS: Is it too late to make a deal?
  • LETTERS: Give up your car and ride a bike
  • EDITORIAL: It's satire, ladies and gentlemen



    • Our economy has evolved into a technology-based marketplace where competition requires an educated work force. Increasingly, employees must comprehend and use mathematics and science as well as have the ability to communicate effectively.

    Mr. Suprynowicz says that we're "locking our children away from the real world" by sending them to school to learn the essentials necessary to compete in today's world. What would his alternative be? Should parents send their children to work in mines and factories, as was done in previous centuries? I suppose they'd learn, if nothing else, the value of an education.

    While Mr. Suprynowicz is correct when he argues there are problems with the current state of public education in America, I would hardly describe them in the fatalistic terms he uses. If he were correct, and our "dysfunctional mandatory government youth propaganda camps" are the norm, how does he explain that every year, many of those who graduated from these "camps" go on to higher education and become the next generation of successful doctors, architects, inventors, politicians and captains of industry?

    Joel Rector

    NORTH LAS VEGAS

    Woman hater

    To the editor:

    In response to Publisher Sherman Frederick's Sunday column, "Can Hillary come back?": We get it. We understand that Mr. Frederick hates Hillary Clinton.

    This time he suggested she would cheat to win, which I suppose is an improvement over his Feb. 3 column in which he called her "evil," ruthless, slimy and akin to Dracula. For this reader, Mr. Frederick's distasteful misogynist rhetoric has crossed the line of what is acceptable.

    Mr. Frederick again puts forth the tired claim that Hillary is "race-baiting." I see no proof of this, but I see plenty of evidence of his own poor view of women. Why is it OK to talk about putting "a fork in Hillary"? None of the other candidates has been subject to such hateful rhetoric.

    If Hillary wins, it will be in spite of pundits like Mr. Frederick, who use their bully pulpits to manipulate the truth, encourage gender stereotypes and spread patently offensive imagery that is insulting to all people. It will be because millions of people who support her can look past the distorted caricature the media have created to see a truly accomplished and capable leader who can lead us to a better future.

    JOCELYN GUTIERREZ

    HENDERSON

    Neighborhood Watch

    To the editor:

    Recent news stories have dealt with the local burglary problem and how hard the crime is to solve. Las Vegas police Capt. Stavros Anthony was quoted in the Review-Journal saying, "If somebody breaks into a house and nobody sees anything, we have absolutely nothing to follow up on. That's basically it."

    Neighborhood Watch is America's premier, proven-effective, citizen crime prevention program. Las Vegas police make available a crime prevention specialist to facilitate the local Neighborhood Watch programs.

    Because I was involved in the 1970s with one of the very earliest citizen crime prevention efforts and I had my own security locksmith business, I know from experience that the Neighborhood Watch program is one of the very important steps that community members can take to protect their personal security as well as deter burglary. Knowing your neighbors and them knowing you, through the watch program, can provide for a stronger, safer, crime-free community. It is always better to have a Neighborhood Watch program in effect prior to having problems, rather than wait until a problem exists.

    For those concerned about burglary or other crimes, your personal participation is extremely important in order to make a Neighborhood Watch program a success. Think of your participation as cost-free insurance against burglary and other crimes, a chance to meet your neighbors and strengthen your community. Neighborhood Watch is a win-win situation for all of us. Contact your local crime prevention specialist to get a Neighborhood Watch program started.

    Martin Koppel

    LAS VEGAS



    Leave Your Comment 23 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Travis wrote on February 19, 2008 06:09 PM: I understand the frustration some people feel for being labeled as "racist" because they will not vote for Obama. I think it is important to be precise with our language. It would be racist for somebody to not vote for Obama because he is an African-American. If you don't vote for him because you believe somebody else would be a better leader, then that is clearly not racist. The same would hold true of "sexism" with Hillary. Racist and sexist people still exist, but they are quickly becoming a much smaller minority.

    On the other hand, I can understand an African-American voting for Obama because he is an African-American. It is a pride issue, a sense of pride for your own heritage. It is the same reason a mormon would vote for a mormon, pride in the opportunity for a "minority" becoming President. If you are part of the majority, it is much more difficult to recognize this pride. I'm certain many of the African-Americans that have voted for Obama have also voted for a white person. Are they only a racist now but not before?


    oldlawdawg wrote on February 19, 2008 03:54 PM: Thank's, Mike -- right on the money. IT'S NOT ABOUT GENDER, ITS ABOUT INTEGRITY!

    I would be more than happy to vote for a woman in a split second, but not this particular woman, regardless if there is no other woman on the horizon who has accumulated a sufficient power base to run for the presidency. VOTING FOR A WOMAN SIMPKLY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN IS JUST AS SEXIST AS VOTING FOR A MAN JUST BECAUSE HE IS A MAN, AND JUST AS RACIST AS VOTING FOR AN AFRICAN AMERICAN SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN, NEITHER GENDER NOR RACE BEING SUFFICIENT GROUNDS IN THEMSELVES TRO ELECT A PERSON TO THE PRESIDENCY NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE MAY FEEL "THE TIME HAS COME AND IT'S NOW OR NEVER" SINCE THERE ARE NO OTHER ELECTABLE CANDIATES OF SUITABLE RACE OR GENDER ON THE FORESEEABLE HORIZON.

    IT'S NOT ABOUT GENDER, AND IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE -- EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T STOMACH JOHN MCCAIN, EITHER!

    OBAMA IS A CHOICE, BUT HILLARY IS SO ETHICALLY BANKRUPT AND LACKING IN CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY THAT SHE IS JUST PLAIN UNNACCEPTABLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH A WOMAN PRESIDENT MAY CONCEIVABLY BRING TO THE NATION -- SHE IS THE WRONG WOMAN, AND WILL SET BACK THE ODDS OF ANOTHER WOMAN PRESIDENT ANOTHER CENTURY!


    Brian wrote on February 19, 2008 03:49 PM: Please tell me how voting FOR someone for the color of his skin is any different for NOT voting for someone because of the color his skin.

    Also, please tell me voting FOR someone for her gender is any different than voting AGAINST her for her gender.

    And the same for religion too--like all mormons voted for a mormon.


    Mike wrote on February 19, 2008 12:52 PM: Jocelyn - most of us are shrewd enough to know the mantra - "When a woman supports a woman that is SOLIDARITY, when a black supports a black that is also SOLIDARITY, when a man supports a man that is SEXISM and when a white supports a white that is RACISM". So, does the cap fit?


    oldlawdawg wrote on February 19, 2008 12:28 PM: Jocelyn: IT'S NOT ABOUT GENDER, IT'S ABOUT TRUTH. IT'S NOT ABOUT GENDER, IT'S ABOUT INTEGRITY. IT'S NOT ABOUT GENDER, IT'S ABOUT HONESTY. IT'S NOT ABOUT GENDER, IT'S ABOUT FREEDOM FROM MANIPULATION.

    HILLARY IS A PROVEN LIAR, A PROVEN MANIPULATOR ON A LEVEL THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE, AND A PERSON WHO HAS DEMONSTRATED A COMPLETE LACK OF INTEGRITY AND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF A MORAL COMPASS.

    IT'S NOT ABOUT GENDER, IT'S ABOUT A PERSON UNFIT TO LEAD THIS NATION.

    IT'S ONLY ABOUT GENDER TO PROPLE LIKE YOU, JOCELYN, WHO PREFERS BLTANT DENIAL BECAUSE HILLARY MAY BE THE LAST ELECTABLE WOMAN SEEN FOR A WHILE, WHEN, IN FACT, THE NATION IS ALIVE WITH COUNTLESS WOMEN MORE CAPABLE AND ABLE TO LEAD THAN HILLARY, BUT WHO ARE NOT AS ATTENTION GRABBING AND MANIPULATIVE AS HER. HILLARY'DS AVERICE IS JUST TOO NAKED TO EVER BE ACCEPTABLE, JUST AS HER HUSBAND IS UNACCEPTABLE REGARDLESS OF HIS GENDER.

    IT'S NOT ABOUT GENDER TO ANYBODY WHO IS LOOKING AT THE TRUTH.


    Joe C wrote on February 19, 2008 12:18 PM: Regarding Joel,
    Understanding how the Joel Rector’s of today think, any distraction from their ideals is antiquated. Joel says we not longer live in a manufacturing based economy, which is totally untrue.
    Business just found new subjugated and slave labor overseas or imported. People’s needs for manufactured goods haven’t changed. We have huge corporate farms and while the family farms cannot compete, he is right it is disappearing.
    Embracing progress is a good idea, but is it really progress when our educated feel superior and allow a less educated people to be subjugated as our doctors; architects, inventors, politicians and captains of industry sit around complimenting each other’s ego’s sipping champagne.
    No one saying schools not important but it’s the combination of hard work and brainpower that make a society great. All working people should be treated and rewarded fairly.
    Those like Joel don’t have to talk or hang out with a factory worker but understand a man’s hard labor is important. After all many a factory worker put their kids like Joel thru college. Have we become that ungrateful and self-serving we don’t respect all the things that made the U.S. great.


    lwf wrote on February 19, 2008 12:01 PM: yeah, where is that last-word-freak david johann?


    tim wrote on February 19, 2008 11:57 AM: mr. roker,look in the mirror when you spout about other peoples opinions. it seems only hate filled lefties have to have the last word,thats you if you didnt get it. yes we understand that republicans are the devil and hillary is the saint,but can you find no flaws within your own party? they say you cant argue facts with someone who knows all the facts.sound about right?


    tom wrote on February 19, 2008 11:32 AM: it's not silly about how they are glad he is gone,but a certain percentage of them had a vested interest in him staying, the people fighting us there for the most part were Al Queda not the citizens


    Willard Roker wrote on February 19, 2008 11:15 AM: Don't forget that the gas Saddam used to kill the Kurds was given to him by us to use on Iran. But I'm not talking about Saddam, I'm talking about the people of Iraq. Before you go off on some silliness about how the people of Iraq are glad we removed him, tell me why we destroyed the entire country instead of taking him like we took Noriega. If his people really wanted him gone they would not have gotten in the way.


    Read All Comments