This letter arrived in response to last week's As We See It story on UNLV President Carole Harter's plan to invest Maryland Parkway with a "street scene." A note: Despite the implication by this letter-writer, Oscar Goodman was only noted as being in the audience for Harter's talk; he's not extremely involved in her plan. That part of Maryland Parkway is well out of his jurisdiction.
Wow, Harter and Goodman are going to build a street scene. The two most likely people to do it. One can muscle her way into the area and the other can make the area into $25 ultraexclusive martini bistros and defend her if she steps on any constitutional toes ... and no one will be there. New, expensive and better does not make class. It makes it out of the question for a scene, as any college student that has had "the scene," can tell you. Isn't it so funny that we only want the upper echelon of society to hang around, but we still want our f--king toilets washed and our vehicles parked? One thing: If these two go out to make a scene, I am sure we will have one.
Damon Hodge's August 19 story on a dispute at Dog Fancier's Park continues to draw a response:
Why did you not contact the Nevada Dog Fanciers Association that has the lease on the Dog Park for now and hear our side about the Dog Fanciers Park?
Just to let you know a little history of the Dog Park: In 1969, representatives of all the dog clubs in the area formed the Nevada Dog Fanciers Association. In 1971, the NDFA put a plan for a dog park to the commissioners and the plan was approved. From 1972 to 1980, the NDFA worked on getting the Dog Fanciers Park put together. The members of the dog clubs did almost all of the work. The clubhouse that is there now was put in and built by the NDFA, along with the trees and leveling out the ground and buying the grass seed. The NDFA members dug the ditches for the water line and sprinklers in the park. Older members of the NDFA said that at no time was there any member from the public down at the Dog Fanciers Park helping with the work. In May 1980, the NDFA held a ribbon-cutting for dedication of the Dog Fanciers Park.
The NDFA has run the park and was able to put in the new lights and the improvements and the new work is being done now. (The fencing plans are not what we wanted; the county did what it wanted as for the fencing.) With the losing of the contract of the Dog Fanciers Park and the way the county put the fences in, you will not see any of the big dog shows at the Dog Park. The big dog show that was going to be held in October was canceled and will be held in the Las Vegas Convention Center next year.
What the people who had written in to you don't know is that all the dog clubs that train down at the Dog Park have to have $1 million or more in insurance to hold their training and any dog-related activities. And the Dog Park, along with paying the county for the area of the park and also for the number of the dogs that are entered. And yes, we are also taxpayers, as all the people at the park tell us. But where were these taxpayers when the original club members were trying to get a dog park and when they were planting the trees and hauling dirt? There were none of them there, yet they now say that it is their park. You will see little events from the dog clubs holding any events at the Dog Park in the future. And if it does turn into a kiddie or a soccer or baseball park, then the public is to blame and not the dog clubs, because we will not try to stop it this time, as we did last October.
President, NDFA
Editor's note: Our story was based on events at public meetings, at which no one from the NDFA spoke prominently; also, it dealt more specifically with the anger of certain park users toward the county's oversight. Nonetheless, in hindsight, we regret not including the NDFA's point of view.
A recent letter attacking rampant growth in the Valley prompted this response:
Unsightly growth, what a crock of shit this Aaron Daniels had to say. I wonder where this guy is from? How does he propose that we all make a living if growth here stops?
High taxes, DMV fees, insurance and the cost of living are driving people out of California.
I am sure the developers care about the resources—without water they can't develop.
Do we really want more government control?
Maybe we should think more about artificial lawns and turning back-yard pools into skate parks.
I just wanted to vent, so thanks for listening.
In response to Bralio Mendez, September 16 letters.
My understanding of the First Amendment is that it is intended and designed to create an environment where various ideas and perspectives can compete in a marketplace of ideas on the same platform.
It might be good, however, to read the FA once again, because it seems to me that in the past 50-60 years, the concept of it has been forgotten and muddled by the majority of Americans and especially by the Supreme Court.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."
Doesn't it appear that the main concept here is "freedom"? The word separation is not used in the First Amendment, is it? "A wall of separation between church and state" is a phrase written by Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. It's a metaphor and not the definition of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is about freedom. Freedom from a government that dictates who, how, where and what we worship. Also, freedom of speech. This means that if you want to be a Buddhist, Christian or atheist, then you are free to speak about it and practice it.
There is a restriction found in the First Amendment. But it's a restriction placed on the government and not on us, the people. The people are free! So why does the Supreme Court say that praying at a public high-school football game is unconstitutional? They are praying FREELY! If atheists don't like it, then they don't have to pray. But please remember, Christians have the same rights as atheists: free speech.
Congress "establishing a religion" is not Christians praying at a football game or Bush reading the Psalms after Muslim terrorists murder our men, women, and children in New York. Sorry, these prayers and scripture readings are exercises of free speech and for the benefit of others. If atheists don't like it, then they don't have to listen.
The First Amendment does not mean "religious people shut up!" but rather, "government leave religious people (atheists included) free!"
A final thought for us to chew on:
If there is any seriousness in thinking that an atheistic president would somehow bring liberation to America, let us not forget communism, which murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century alone. We can thank men like Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Adolph Hitler for godless communist thinking and these atrocities. Guess what belief system these guys held to? You guessed it, atheism!