LETTERS

Read more

Letters

To the Editor,

How would you react if President Obama as well Congress all agreed to take pay cuts to something close to minimum wage? Surprised and ecstatic are two feelings that come to my mind initially. Only later to find out that these pay cuts would not affect any current member in the government but only the next administration and senate. I would be angry and upset that I was misinformed initially. That is what Adam Cronis is trying to do with CSUN right now. Claiming that CSUN gives more money in salaries than to student organizations, which is true until you look deeper. CSUN has a Business Manager that is paid $60,000 a year that would not get a pay cut along with an assistant manager and several receptionists. It would be the salaries of the student leaders who essentially make slightly over minimum wage with all of the time they put into their positions. By lowering salaries, more qualified applicants that could do more for UNLV would probably not be interested in these positions. We would be replacing these people with less qualified applicants that couldn’t earn more than minimum wage in a regular job anyway. The current officials would be taking the credit for reducing CSUN wages but yet it wouldn’t affect them, it would affect the next set of individuals that take these roles. CSUN Senators have not been given a pay increase in over a decade as well as any stipend increases. If we cut CSUN wages anymore we should start recruiting at the local McDonalds about upcoming CSUN elections since nobody else qualified would be interested.

Rick Shukis,
Graduate Student

Note: Letters to the editor run unedited.

Letters

To the Editor,

Concerning Mr. Jarzen’s Monday article:
I’d like to offer a counter to your argument on liberalism, point by point. First off, it is dangerous business to lump so many ideologies into one category, as some are not related to others and those that are still have differences. More on this later, but by creating a loose chain between these ideologies and then throwing them into a statist category, you are doing something analogous to describing somebody’s personality based on their ancestry, and it’s a poor method of reasoning.

You claim to assault liberal ideology and not “your average liberal,” but continue to talk about liberals only seeking to achieve control and liberals not wanting to help people, which seems to make claims about the behavior of your average liberal. It’s like saying “I’m not racist, but…” Also, you say that liberals don’t want to help people, but then shortly thereafter claim that liberals want control to achieve their ends. Are these ends not to ensure a measure of justice, equal opportunity, and human decency, or in other words to help, everybody?

The creation of the United States of America did not necessarily lay the foundation for freedom and liberty. We denied those things for years to those who didn’t own land, slaves, women, and Native Americans. The spread of our concepts of liberty and freedom have often come at the subjugation and exploitation of others. Your remark on minorities forsaking their freedom for help from liberals is prejudiced and historically inaccurate.

You attack socialism, Marxism, and communism in practice, yet claim that the practice is the same as the doctrine. This is simply untrue; attack practice or philosophy, but don’t confuse the two.

I will now offer my defense of liberalism, and then challenge you to offer your vision for the country. I indeed support using government coercion to provide social security, health care, and welfare for the poor and disabled. I believe that laziness should not be supported, but I’d rather err on the side of supporting laziness than on the side of people being unable to survive. I believe that the coercive force is necessary because so far, the evidence I’ve seen shows that in deregulated capitalism, the successful continue to consolidate wealth and charities go without the resources they need to help people. I believe that the free market leads to the tyranny of the wealthy, and why is that more acceptable than government involvement? You talk about oppression through government programs, but what are your thoughts on oppression through militarism? And how would you like to see government structured instead of the current model, which you find to be too stifling?

Howard Watts III,
Political science

Note: Letters to the editor run unedited.

Letters

To the Editor,

Silence and fear surround gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people. Employees fear for their jobs, sons and daughters fear rejection by their families, students fear discrimination by peers and teachers, friends fear the loss of their relationships, the faithful fear condemnation from their religious leaders and fellows. Statistics and stories justify the fear and silence. About sixty percent of GLBTQ students feel unsafe at school. At least one in four GLBTQ youth are rejected by their families when they come out, and they are four times more likely to attempt suicide.

Nobody should live in fear, nobody should have to remain silent about their feelings while hateful rhetoric surrounds them, nobody should feel alone. Members of the GLBTQ community and their allies have written chalk messages on the campus to remind us of a few things. No matter who you are, you are not alone. You are loved. You are a human being. Your voice deserves to be heard. You are supported. As Monday starts National Coming Out Week, which culminates in National Coming Out Day on the 11th, it’s time to break the silence. It’s time for us to put aside our differences and unite around, at the very least, our shared humanity and our values which transcend all faiths: love, tolerance, and charity.

And so, I hope that everybody will come out this year, especially the allies to our GLBTQ friends and family. We need to continue to break the silence, calling out negative language and making known our feelings so that when people feel downtrodden, they know that they are not alone and that they have somebody to turn to. It is our sincere hope that this first annual nationwide You-Are-Loved chalk message project, originally started five years ago on the campus of Drew University, will be the first step in breaking down barriers, building up communities, and opening hearts and minds around these critical issues.

Howard Watts III,
Political Science

______________________________________________________________________________________

To the Editor,

I am not a regular reader of The Rebel Yell, but the first issue I happened to pick up was today in my English class. My professor was passing around a copy of your newspaper, and puzzled, I examined the paper, waiting for an explanation as to why we were reviewing it. That’s when the women in my English class took off on a heated rant about The Burger Grind Bar and Lounge advertisement placed on the back of your newspaper.

This advertisement is going to draw on a woman as if she were a cow, implying she is to be eaten and shit out moments later, and not expect people to be angry? It REALLY disappoints me that society thinks of women in such a disgusting and disrespectful manner, and for the Rebel Yell to support this gross misconception of a women’s worth disappoints me even more. I cannot believe my own school is going to put these labels on me as a woman. I thought college was supposed to be a positive aspect to further my personality, knowledge, and experiences.

Now it would be unfair for me to say that freedom of speech does not exist and that the Rebel Yell has no right to express their own opinions, but I think this advertisement will go as far as making a huge impact on the female population at UNLV. I, for one, will never purchase a copy of your newspaper as long as I go here, and I will inform as many people as I can about this ridiculous advertisement.

This is not a petty subject, and I really hope people will not be so ignorant as to dismiss this matter completely. If we want to change the way women are perceived we have to start with problems such as these. Thank you for your time, and I hope you can find it in yourself to understand this concern!

Alicia (Allie) Podhaisky,
Undeclared

NOTE: Letters to the editor run unedited.

Letters

To the Editor,

In response to your opinion piece “More Than ‘Meats’ the Eye” (August 31, 2009), I would like to commend Mr. Collins for giving vegetarianism a try, and I’m confident that he’ll be pleased with the results. Vegetarian foods are more popular than ever — particularly among college students.

A trip to any local grocery store (even Wal-Mart) will reveal delicious dishes—such as Gardenburger vegetarian barbecue “riblets” and Boca veggie “chicken” sandwiches—that would fool even the most ardent meat-eater. They have all the protein and nutrients that a body needs, without the saturated fat or cholesterol of meat-based dishes—and that means they are a great way to keep off that pesky “freshman 15.”

And as if that weren’t reason enough to leave meat off your plate, animals on factory farms often have growth-promoting drugs pumped into their bodies. This forces them to grow unnaturally large so quickly that their legs often cannot support the weight of their massive upper bodies. This kind of manipulation for the purpose of profit is standard in an industry that refuses to make even the most basic changes to reduce animals’ suffering. It’s bad for our health, bad for the environment, and certainly bad for animals.

Thankfully, it’s getting easier and easier to cut this cruel industry out of our lives. With so many delicious and cruelty-free meals—such as black-bean burgers and vegan pizza—available (especially in Vegas), there’s never been a better time to give meat the boot. For more information, visit peta2.com to request a free copy of PETA’s “Vegetarian Starter Kit” as well as stickers and a DVD.

RYAN huling,
college campaign coordinator

NOTE: Letters to the editor run unedited.

Letters

To the Editor,

On August 24th, an article in the opinion section was published entitled “Don’t forget our non-traditional students.” I applaud the effort of the rebel yell in shedding some light on this under represented group of students. Full time workers, parents, and military veterans comprise a few non-traditional student groups who come to campus with a different perspective; they are often older, their career track is usually set, and they certainly approach education with a different level of maturity.

Consider the age gap between the traditional freshman and a non-traditional student. Years of experience in life provides a wealth of knowledge for the non-traditional student in comparison to the traditional freshman. It is evident in interpersonal and public communication as well; I am careful to make general statements, but it seems that speaking in general is different between traditional and non-traditional students. In my first week of classes I noticed such a difference, younger students tend to fill the void of silence in between thoughts with “uhhh….umm” and utilizing my favorite word “like”. Non-traditional students usually have professional experience and understand that this is not an academically sound way of communicating nor is it professional.

Non-traditional students also have an idea of which field or profession they intend on entering, which is the deciding factor in their return to higher education. In comparison, it seems traditional students question their career path by changing their major countless times, which I completely understand.

However, it is rather unnerving to sit in a class where a professor must degrade material down to students with less life experience and a lost sense of direction. Consider this, if you are between the ages of 18-21, would you want to sit in a class with 15-17 year old teenagers and learn about world events.

Would that level of discussion progress to a stimulating conversation?

My previous rhetorical question reaffirms the idea that most non-traditional students approach education with a level of maturity that surpasses that of the majority of traditional students. Now, this is not true in every case, but maturity certainly corresponds with age. Non-traditional students enter, or reenter college, to pursue their education and challenge themselves. The challenge is not in the curriculum for the non-traditional student, but lies within the socially inept atmosphere that often clouds a traditional classroom.

It would certainly be uncharacteristic of me to offer these issues without solutions. For those of you unaware, there has been research conducted in the field of adult learning and non-traditional students. Here at UNLV, I propose that non-traditional students be afforded the opportunity to enroll in course sections designated specifically for them; considering most courses offer multiple sections, this is feasible.

Michael Dakduk,
Public administration major

NOTE: Letters to the editor run unedited.

Letters

To the Editor,

In response to August 10th, 2009 Matthew jarzen article “America: the new Land of the Czars.”

Mr. Jarzen goes into great detail explaining the FDR and Obama administrations uses of cabinet Czars while upsurping the constitution and eliminating the checks and balances of the other branches particularly the Senate and its confirmation role.

While he cheerfully mentions only Democratic administrations and a bypassing reference to Nixon, I must inform the great readers of this fine newspaper of the George W. Bush administrations use of czars in all faucets of its administration that clearly usurps the checks and balances and bypasses Senate oversight that Mr. Jarzen holds dear to his heart.

Here are a few of the Czar positions that Bush 43 apponted by Presidential Appointment that were not confirmed by the Senate clearly violating the constitution: Homeland security czar, Terrorism Czar, AIDS Czar, Bank Bailout Czar, Bioethics Czar, cyber security czar, Domestic Policy Czar, Faith Based Czar (clearly violating the separation of Church and State), Food Safety Czar, Global AIDS Czar, Health Czar for the WTC, Intelligence Czar, Manufacturing Czar, Reading Czar, Regulatory Czar, to name a few.

I do agree with Mr. Jarzen that these Presidential Appointments clearly violate the Constitution; but he needs to be honest in his assessment that both political parties are guilty of this practice. If according Mr. Jarzen, Obama has amassed an unprecedented amount of power because of the appointment of czars, then can we say the same regarding George W. Bush?

John J. O’Brien,
history major

NOTE: Letters to the editor run unedited.

Letters

To the Editor,

I was dismayed by the inaccuracies in the opinion piece, “The perfect hospital at the end of the universe” published in your July 27, 2009 edition. I acknowledge that the staff writer is entitled to his opinion concerning the current debate over health care reform. But, he is not entitled to make up facts about the uninsured in this country.

According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, in 2007, there were 45.7 million uninsured persons in this country. This is not a “supposed” statistic! Of those 45.7 million, 10.23 million were not U.S citizens – not the “up to 20 million” as stated by Mr. Jarzen. He further states that they are 10 million uninsured persons who “could afford to purchase their own insurance but choose not to”, because they choose to buy “second cars, bigger houses or new flat-screens” instead of insurance. Who are these persons? I know of no data to support this assertion. Is he referring to the about 19 million uninsured young adults between the ages of 18-30 year? It is probably true that some young adults forgo health insurance so they can buy other goods. But, it is also the case that many young people cannot afford insurance, because they work in low paying jobs that may not provide health insurance benefits.

Finally, Mr. Jarzen claims that there are 9-10 million persons who are temporarily uninsured while they are between jobs. Actually, this is a gross underestimate, because according to a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), about 45% of the uninsured, or about 25 million persons, are uninsured for less than 4 months. But, this should not be taken to mean, as Jarzen implies, that all of these temporarily uninsured persons are not disadvantaged by not having health insurance. Going four months without insurance could prove to be critical for individuals with chronic diseases and disabilities.

One important statistic concerning the uninsured that Jarzen didn’t include in his piece is that 22 million of the uninsured in 2007 worked full-time during that year, and that another 5.6 million uninsured worked part-time. These are working Americans who worked in low paying jobs without health insurance benefits. He also didn’t mention that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimates that about 18,000 uninsured Americans die every year, because they don’t have access to adequate medical care.

Mr. Jarzen is to be commended for pointing out that the uninsured are not a homogeneous group in terms of potential medical need; or in terms of whether they would be perceived by the public as deserving of government assistance. However, this does not give him license to base his basically ideologically driven arguments on inaccuracies.

Charles B. Moseley
Chair, Department of Health Care Administration and Policy

NOTE: Letters to the editor run unedited.

Letters

To the Editor,

Have you heard of the I’d like to share a personal experience of mine. Just this Saturday, I dropped off my vehicle at one of the dealerships in the Auto Mall. They had no shuttle service, so I decided to walk to the Galleria Mall, intending to take the bus. I had never even walked in front of a bus stop, let alone ride the bus.

I feel the public transportation system here in Nevada needs to be improved greatly, especially in Las Vegas. During rush hour, the freeways turn into large parking lots. At this point its better to walk than to drive. Imagine, if our public transit systems were vastly improved, how many cars we could get off the road. It would especially help those who cannot even afford a bicycle, let alone a car. As a college student at UNLV, I know classmates that have to wake up at 5:00am, to be at the bus stop at 6:00am, to finally get to class at 8:00am.

This year, Congress has the opportunity to vote on a bill that would determine priorities for mass transit over the next 6 years. Our senator, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, has a great opportunity to ensure the public’s interest is front and center, fully supporting more efficient public transportation.

ROBIN THOMAS,
ACCOUNTING Major

NOTE: Letters to the editor run unedited.

Letters: President demoted

To the Editor,

I would like to preface this letter by stating that the views expressed are that of my standing as a UNLV undergraduate student and not as my position as Undergraduate Student Body President or as a representative of UNLV’s undergraduate student government.

As the hot days of July unfold and the summer months continue to roll forward, it is easy to forget the very contentious and difficult budget discussions that gripped the UNLV campus and all of Nevada’s higher education institutions for the better part of the last 16 months. As this past winter transpired, UNLV was facing a budgetary crisis which would have dealt it a cut of $11 million dollars more than our counterparts at UNR. That $11 million dollar figure translates into critical academic programs, faculty and staff positions that would have most certainly faced the chopping block had one individual not felt compelled to stand up and advocate for fairness. That individual was former UNLV President David Ashley.

Dr. Ashley should hold his head high in knowing he had the conviction to advocate for fairness as it related to UNLV’s portion of the states’ budget cuts. Through careful, deliberate and measured leadership, President Ashley was successful in lobbying Nevada’s lawmakers to include millions of dollars in “Stop Loss” funding for UNLV so that the students, faculty and staff of this great institution were not subjected to a level of sacrifice and loss disproportionately greater than their colleagues at the University of Nevada-Reno.

Dr. Ashley’s lobbying efforts as it related to UNLV’s share of funding has without question saved the careers, economic security and educational prospects of countless individuals, individuals who are part of the UNLV family. It was argued during Fridays’ Board of Regents Meeting that Dr. Ashley splintered NSHE’s unified front when he lobbied for UNLV to receive “Stop Loss” funding, yet was unity the proper goal to maintain if this university was to be hit with a clearly disproportionate and inequitable budget cut?

Whatever your thoughts and feelings are regarding Dr. Ashley’s removal from his position as President, please take time to reflect upon how much worse the budgetary devastation would have been to UNLV had he not felt the strength to challenge what was most assuredly a raw deal for UNLV’s constituents. In this particular instance, one can view Dr. Ashley’s actions as that of insubordination or that of doing what he felt was right for his university, if you view it in the latter; thank Dr. Ashley for his dedicated efforts in this area and pray that the next UNLV President will have that same strength of spirit when a future budget crisis occurs.

ADAM CRONIS
POLITICAL SCIENCE
& HISTORY MAJOR

NOTE: Letters to the editor run unedited.

Next Page »