Response to Brian Greenspun

This post is in response to the op-ed piece Las Vegas Sun's editor, Brian Greenspun in the July 12th Las Vegas Sun. I find it funny and controlling/restrictive that he comments on the 'comments' posted in response to articles all over the internet yet, Brian Greenspun does not allow readers to comment online to his opinion(s). Mr. Greenspun, please explain. Thomas Mitchell at the RJ allows comments.

1) This country was founded on FREEDOM. Most importantly, freedom of choice: where to live, which religion to follow (if any at all), which to car drive, where to work, who to work for, who date/marry, where to educate your kids, whether or not to live a healthy lifestyle, and the list goes on. By taxing the citizens to pay for something that is a choice (method, amount and quality of health care) is akin to taking from the citizens(see ‘takings clause’ of the 5th Amendment); it also reeks of Socialism/Communism. I choose to live a healthy lifestyle, to only bring those into the world which I can support, avoid danger, etc. If I make a poor choice, I pay the price, not you. I don’t expect you to pay for my bad choices.

2) What you are saying is that we have a moral obligation to help our neighbor, our fellow man. Is it an obligation? Maybe. But it is my choice to complete my obligation(s). If I choose an immoral path, my God will deal with me accordingly. But what about those who do not share in your beliefs? If they do not believe in your God, or any other, are they immoral? By taxing the citizens to pay for example, health care, you are forcing your morals on the citizens. Those who society deem as immoral will pay the price, the cosmos will be sure of that. The universe we live in is precariously balanced: the universe has a way of taking care of those who attempt to change that balance.

3) If it is my moral duty to behave a certain way and take of my fellow man, it is MY MORAL DUTY, not yours. It is in fact your duty to espouse the virtues/benefits of your beliefs, and why I should want to share those beliefs. It is not, however your duty to force your beliefs upon me (i.e. Stalin, King George, fanatical Islam, etc.). Again, the universe has a way of taking care of those who force anything upon another.

Las Vegas Sun Political Endorsements

Surprise, surprise, surprise! Come on guys (Greespun & Co.), you could only find 2 Legislative candidates who are not Democrats? Out of 40 local offices and 44 overall you endorsed only 2 Republicans. This works out to 5% local and 4.5% overall. We all know you lean (way) left, but this is a little much. By contrast your Judicial endorsements are 40% conservative. To be fair, some of your Judicial endorsements are for seats where only liberals (I am choosing to define liberal as being listed on the Clark County Democratic Party's website as 'candidates') are running; removing those endorsements changes your conservative endorsements to 55.6%.

Your only competitor seems to be a little more realistic. The RJ's Legislative endorsements stand at 61.8% conservative (as of this post the RJ has not published County Commission endorsements). On the Judicial side the RJ stands at 44% conservative. After removing seats where only liberals are running it changes to 57.9%. Somewhat more consistent, don't you think?

What this tells me is you want liberals making the law but you don't trust them enough to enforce and possibly interpret the law. I just find this to be very odd. Hopefully someone can provide some guidance here.

Dan Wollam