LETTERS

In response to Hector Rivera's letter (December 16) in criticism of the "typos, mispelled words, and lack of proper punctuation marks" in your article on Oscar Goodman (cover story, December 2): HECTOR, PLEASE!

I found several grammatical errors in your own letter of criticism, and should Las Vegas Weekly apply your demand for a good copy/print editor and use of a check program to their article, then they should apply it to your letter as well!

While I read their story, and found it entertaining (it IS a Las Vegas entertainment publication), and the cover photo eye-catching, making me want to read the article, I found your letter confusing because of your many grammatical mistakes! So, after reading your letter, I feel they really didn't owe you an explanation; rather, they should have returned your letter for corrections!

EDITOR'S NOTE: We sincerely appreciate your spirited defense, E., but in fairness to Hector, we should point out that we ironed out a misspelling and a couple of misplaced punctuation marks in your own letter. But the bottom line is that we here at the Weekly are the ones with a responsibility to be ever-vigilant on matters of grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation.

Viva la English!

Matt Jacob was unduly optimistic in claiming that a 42-33 record on NFL games puts him 9 games above .500, that's only 1/2 the formula; 33-33 or 42-42 is .500, but 42-33 is 4 and 1/2 games above .500. The formula for finding .500 is (W+L)/2; in this case 37.5 =.500. (W-L)/2 also yields the same result.

Should I apply for an editor position? I can also do political comedy. My point of view is that people often confuse sets, whether deliberately or not, to make themselves look better. For example, President Bush did NOT get 51 percent of the vote, as was commonly reported, because we cannot assume that the 1/2 of the people who did not vote would have voted in similar fashion as those that did. Bush truly got less than 1/4 of the vote, but, unlike a sports team, that was enough to win.

Thank you,

EDITOR'S NOTE: Matt Jacob for President in 2008!

Since 1994, the United States has been entangled in the World Trade Organization. The WTO's own rules allow member nations to enter into additional regional trade agreements such as NAFTA and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). While some members of Congress may be grateful for such WTO permission, it ought to be obvious to other Americans that our nation's actions should never require the permission of international organizations such as the WTO.

Similarly, the Third Draft Agreement (November 21, 2003) for a Free Trade Area of the Americas commits that proposed organization to follow the dictates of the WTO. Chapter II, Article 3 states: "This Agreement shall be governed by the following principles: consistency of the rights and obligations emanating from this Agreement with the rules and disciplines of the World Trade Organization ..."

America's independence is being frittered away because of numerous international agreements that have far more to do with national sovereignty than with so-called "free trade."

All senators and representatives who believe that our nation should restore its ability to act as a truly independent nation should vote to get the U.S. out of the WTO.

Although Dick Cheney claims that on November 2 America gave President Bush a mandate to implement his agenda for our nation's future, it certainly was not a blank check. Moreover, the administration's vision for a badly misnamed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was barely even explained to voters.

Secretary of State Colin Powell told business leaders in Sao Paolo, Brazil, that the U.S. was firmly committed to seeing this Pan-American free trade deal take effect early next year. However, is this what Americans really want?

Negotiations for an FTAA were actually launched at the 1994 Miami Summit of the Americas by the Clinton administration. The announced intent was to expand NAFTA into a hemispheric-wide free-trade zone. But the architects of this proposal have revealed that they are seeking much more than economic integration of this hemisphere. Indeed, they seek political integration with a new layer of supra-government modeled after the European Union.

Americans had better not go down the EU road without a lot more explanation than we have been given. It is time to tell Congress to reject any agreement for an FTAA.