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

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Mar. 24, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

LETTERS: Roberts needs lesson in history, English

To the editor:

I find it hard to believe that John Roberts, the current U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, is ignorant of both United States history and the English language.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • LETTERS: Trickle-down economics is dead
  • EDITORIAL: Tip jar
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: A tiny bit of good news?
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • In Wednesday's "The Final Word," he is quoted as asking, "If it is limited to state militias, why would they say 'the right of the people'?" (Referring, of course, to the Second Amendment).

    First the history part: In 1789 the United States did not have a standing army, or a National Guard, or the Army Reserves. What we did have was a series of state militias, each made up of ordinary people who could be called up to serve in an emergency.

    Now the English part: Here are three definitions of "militia":

    1. A body of citizens enrolled for military service, called out periodically for drill, but serving full-time only in emergencies.

    2. A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

    3. All able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

    I am not a constitutional scholar, but to me, it is pretty obvious that in 1789 the people were the militia, and the militia was the people.

    Bob Litt

    LAS VEGAS

    Rein in casinos

    To the editor:

    Robert C. Jablonski's Wednesday letter to the editor, "Casinos shouldn't prey on addicts," emphasizes a point that is totally disregarded in Nevada: Casinos make a minimal effort to control addictive gambling.

    A small sign at cashier cages does not help those addicted. The industry needs to be addressed as any other addictive industry. Cigarette ads are banned from television. Alcohol is limited in its advertisements. Why should the gaming industry be allowed to advertise freely its misleading messages?

    Alcohol awareness? What a joke. Who is benefiting by having employees, serving alcohol, pay money to obtain a license for alcohol awareness when casinos do nothing to inhibit alcohol consumption, thereby limiting reckless gambling? The gaming industry polices itself and thereby fixes the game to their advantage.

    The tobacco companies survived the restrictions placed on them. The alcohol industry has survived. Force the gaming industry to live up to its obligations by making their product safer. Eliminate media advertisements. Restrict marketing strategies that promote excessive gambling (i.e.: "The more you play, the more comps you earn!") and enforce alcohol awareness by penalizing noncompliance in the same manner as underage gambling.

    David Huntington

    LAS VEGAS

    Mercury exaggerations

    To the editor:

    Tuesday's commentary by Dani Doane regarding the dangers of mercury in compact fluorescent light bulbs was surprising, coming from an employee of The Heritage Foundation. Usually it's liberal environmentalists who exaggerate the dangers of various toxins. You would think those light bulbs were manufactured containing ricin or anthrax, not mercury.

    The amount of mercury in one of those light bulbs is miniscule, and the vapor emanating from them at room temperature is insignificant. The dangers from mercury are primarily due to its ability to concentrate in tissue over long periods of exposure, primarily in fish and other edible species. Like all toxins, concentration and the degree of exposure are all-important. Even salt can kill you if you take it in large enough doses or drink it in seawater.

    Until quite recently, mercury was handled in science classes, included in toy chemistry sets and available pervasively in thermometers, switches and other gadgets. I can remember handling mercury routinely as a kid, smearing it on coins to make them shiny. There is mercury in amalgam teeth fillings.

    None of these practices should now be encouraged, in light of our greater knowledge of the dangers of mercury. But to go through what the author went through when her new light bulb broke and to document it as necessary is bordering on fear-mongering.

    Or is The Heritage Foundation so set against any energy conservation measures that it uses such examples to discourage them?

    Elwood Anderson

    LAS VEGAS

    Prison problem

    To the editor:

    With reference to Harry Pappas' Wednesday letter concerning a high school teacher's comment that "it was the tyrannical, the dictatorial, the evil governments that had prisons stuffed full with their people": I think it's a shame Mr. Pappas is still carrying that comment as an absolute. How about a country undergoing moral decay or one lurching toward anarchy?

    Considering he said it was many moons ago, I can possibly forgive him for not having heard of Pol Pot's Cambodian government or more contemporary tyrannical governments, but he should have learned about Mao Tse-tung and Josef Stalin. The common thread of these oppressive governments is the number of dissenters who ended up in mass graves.

    Mr. Pappas should consider the difference between prisons full of lawbreakers as opposed to those full of government dissenters. Hopefully, his old teacher would have recognized this.

    Usually Americans don't care what other countries think about our internal affairs, but I hope they learn how destructive the flight from personal responsibility can be to a society.

    Although our government is far from perfect, the problem of the full prisons isn't the government. It's the people.

    Robert Spriesterbach

    LAS VEGAS



    Leave Your Comment 21 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:

    ann wills wrote on March 25, 2008 04:42 AM: I am concerned about the mercury content of low energy fluorescent light bulbs. If after use they are put in landfills they can contaminate ground water supplies with toxic mercury. If put in glass recycling banks the fumes from broken bulbs could damage the health of the recycling staff. Mercury has been linked to serious neurological diseases. Fluorescent lights give off less carbon - but they cause other serious pollution problems.


    Dr. Roger B. Vavrosky, Ph.D. wrote on March 24, 2008 07:31 PM: 1. Colonies did not have militias; all able bodied men in the colony/community were required to have a firearm for the common defence thereof.
    2. In the 13 colonies ratification process of the US Constitution, one notes that all the colonies in their ratification documents demanded that the right to own/have a firearm was, and should be, a part of the new Constituion and that this right was to be guaranteed and that no law could be made abrogating this right. We need to look at the US Constitution ratification documents of each of the colonies to see what the "people" wanted and that was that they could keep their firearms and no law whatsoever could be implemented to take away that right. If that was not one of the rights (amongst all the other rights necessary - free speech, free press, etc. - "Bill of Rights") that was going to be guaranteed by the new Constitution then colonies would never have voted not to ratify the Constitution!


    beamer wrote on March 24, 2008 02:19 PM: Dr. Jack-

    Who cares? Just be prepared for a few new body piercings should you choose to come for any of my inalienable rights. I'd rather rot in a for-profit "super-max" contraption than concede any more to any one.


    Dr. Jack wrote on March 24, 2008 01:58 PM: So what is your point Mr. Litt? No one should be allowed to keep firearms, as now in our modern world we have taxpayer funded police, state and national military defense forces.

    The problem with the "American" ideal (and I'm sure every dottard in Southern Nevada will go nuts at this) is that crazy libertarian individualism causes endless conflict and problem. At some point some individual freedoms are going to have to be given up, and I'm not talking about the Patriot Act ... I'm talking about every man woman and child having guns. It needs to be restricted. Every individual having 4 TV sets and owning three cars, etc. etc. at some point things will need to be drawn in. Don't tell me of market forces, or the beauty of capitalism either. Our nation is a wreck, the world is a wreck and its the unsustainable consumption of the baby boomers, and the unrealistic "rugged individualism" of previous generations that has caused the ruin. Will we prevail? Or slip into decline ... who knows ..


    Lane wrote on March 24, 2008 11:37 AM: If you take the second ammendment part where it refers to the "people" as a collective right, we all will need to give up our first ammendment rights as well, since it refers to the "people". Wait, thanks to all the ultra liberals that want nothing more than to destroy our nation, and our way of life, we will no longer have individual rights, but only rights as defined by the likes of Hilary Clinton, and her new VP Bill, and be forced to spend our time as Americans figuring out what the definition of "is" is.


    Tax Payer wrote on March 24, 2008 11:31 AM: the problem with our prison system is the criminals are not paying for their crimes, the tax payers are. We pay $20k/yer to lock them up and then let them out with the clothes on their backs and no smarter (probably even worse from being around other criminals in prison) and wonder why they return to prison after no one will let them work and earn a living because they have a record. The problem is, many of these people in prison are parents.. they are not only able to work and pay child support, but the tax payers are picking up that tab too.. They say 'crime doesn't pay'. Well folks, unless we actually rehabilitate criminals and LET them work when they get out.. 'crime costs' you and I a fortune.


    artie wrote on March 24, 2008 11:15 AM: Ken,

    Learn how to work kid ;)


    Vegas Native wrote on March 24, 2008 09:51 AM: Mr. Kraft: Mr. Litt referred to Mr. Roberts as "the current U.S. Supreme Court chief justice" not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." Further, Mr. Litt included "[a]ll able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service" as a definition of "Militia."


    Ken wrote on March 24, 2008 09:19 AM: Artie,

    Force your bookie to pay up and you wouldnt have a problem. ;)


    Dave L wrote on March 24, 2008 08:43 AM: Bob Litt,

    Thanks! I am now wondering, if "we the people" is deliniated in our founding documents, then who is the government of the United States?


    Read All Comments