Letters

Headlines

Welcome to this week’s Reno News & Review.

I take this seriously out of respect for the victims, but when the media, including the Associated Press, KOLO-TV, Reno Gazette-Journal, Elko Daily Free Press, KSNV in Las Vegas, the Daily Journal in Indiana and others, report, “Ex-Reno News & Review writer sentenced for date rapes,” all I can do is shake my head. Why not “Rapist sentenced to 40 years”?

The last story Danny Riggs wrote for this newspaper was in 2009. He was a generally a music writer. He won a couple of awards, including a big one through the university, the Steve Martarano Best Published Article Award. The award paid him $500.

I fired him. I can say that because it’s hard to libel a convicted rapist. It would also be hard to violate his privacy since he publicly suggested to arts editor Brad Bynum that he fight me for his (freelance) job back.

He was a liar and a scoundrel, no doubt. I fired him for missing deadlines and ethical violations.

There’s this thing about criminality and demonization that I never quite get. I’m a pretty good judge of character. I thought the kid was misguided and would take the easy path to get what he wanted, but I didn’t think he was a bad guy. Just too ambitious. Obviously, I was wrong, but he wasn’t some demon. At some point not that long ago, he was just a boy, loved by his family and his teachers. I remember the extra efforts faculty at the University of Nevada, Reno gave him. They don’t do that for people they don’t like.

I’ve got to wonder, though, why Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Druckman included that he freelanced here all those years ago in her release about the conviction. I also wonder why she included that Riggs was an Obama supporter. Weird. Plainly she used the public dime to make political hay—why, I don’t know.

I spoke to Associated Press San Francisco Bureau Chief John Raess about it. His argument was that if people in Reno knew Riggs, they were most likely to know him from this newspaper. Still, four and a half years. I see the logic in his argument even if I probably wouldn’t have handled it the same way. —D. Brian Burghart brianb@newsreview.com

Better sooner than later

Re “Grouse decision” (Green, Nov. 14):

I was glad to see your coverage of the sage-grouse listing determination in the Green section last week. Nevada has had a conservation plan for sage-grouse, in one form or another, for more than a decade. The bi-state population was listed because the area conservation plan was never implemented. Ultimately, it came down to the fact that nobody was willing to pay for sage-grouse conservation because they didn’t think it mattered. Now that the bird is listed, everyone pays in a different way, and people are starting to see that it does matter. This could have been prevented if we had spent less time talking and more time doing. We still have some time to create a conservation solution for the rest of Nevada, but it will take a concerted effort of all affected parties to sit down and make some hard choices. We also will need support from all of our congressional delegation to help us figure out how to fund sage-grouse conservation in Nevada. We won’t be able to do it alone, and we cannot afford to wait.

Martin T. Nelson Reno

That’s how it works

Re “Our toxic Democracy” (Editorial, Nov. 28):

I found the editorial titled “Our Toxic Democracy” to be a strange and bizarre mish-mash of partisan opinion and historical ignorance. Why does the writer believe that a presidential assassination was necessary before bi-partisan agreement could be reached on the passage of the Civil Rights Act? The death of President Kennedy may have given an impetus to the Act’s passage, but it certainly didn’t end opposition to it. The statement, “We suspect that a presidential murder in this century would leave partisanship in Washington, D.C., largely unaffected and undisturbed,” is probably right, but only because the divisions within our government are based upon fundamental ideological differences. If the writer is referring to President Obama, it is not the man himself that causes people to oppose him, but his radical and destructive policies. The president’s political philosophy is shared by a powerful segment of today’s society, and that philosophy will continue to be opposed by those American who hold strongly different views on the role of government.

I think that it is ironic that the writer chose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as his example of bi-partisan cooperation. He asserts that the assassination of President Kennedy ended opposition to the Civil Rights Act. In fact, the “Southern Bloc” of 18 Democrats and 1 Republican senator delayed passage of the Civil Rights Act with a 54-day filibuster. Secondly, a higher proportion of Republicans than Democrats voted for passage of the Civil Rights Act. So yes, there was a bi-partisan effort to pass the Civil Rights Act. But in the end, the politicians voted in favor of it because it was supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people who saw the moral imperative of passing the Civil Rights Act.

The writer goes on to state his belief that the intent of today’s “toxic politics” is to obstruct, destroy careers, blacken reputations, and employ lies to defeat both legislators and legislation.” Really? He can’t admit that there might be valid reasons for opposing laws that some honestly believe are not in the interests of the American people? Especially now that all the negative effects of the Affordable Care Act are coming to light? He also seems to think that once laws are passed, they become untouchable, impervious to change or repeal. Really? This is an interesting, though absurd position to take. If our laws were immutable, as the writer argues, then we would still have the Fugitive Slave Act, Prohibition, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution!

The writer also makes an odd assertion, “Imagine if extremist billionaires of the time … had ponied up huge sums of money … to target Kennedy’s strengths instead of his weaknesses.” Well, actually, John F. Kennedy’s billionaire father, Joe Kennedy used his vast fortune to support JFK’s political career. The Kennedy family spent lavishly, not only on favorable publicity for JFK, but also on a whole range of underhanded and sometimes criminal activities in every election he ran in. I am not excusing dirty politics, but I wouldn’t assert that it is new, or that only the other side does it, as was stated in the editorial.

I’m sure the writer believes that conservatives / Republicans are to blame for the existing legislative gridlock; that bunch of mean-spirited conniving fat-cats are attempting to block President Obama’s efforts to lead the nation to Utopia. Quite frankly, having seen the results of five years of Obama’s Utopia, the economic stagnation, high unemployment, lies, scandals, incompetence, corruption, and contempt for the Constitution, I applaud all those who oppose him.

Charles Burt Carson City

That’s the law

The city of Sparks had their Christmas Parade, and that’s great. But why do both the city of Sparks and the city of Reno have an official “Holiday Tree” instead of a “Christmas Tree.” Reno’s designation to have a Holiday Tree “was decided upon through our elected officials and City Attorney’s office,” according to a return e-mail I received from Reno Direct online. Are the cities of Sparks and Reno observing some holiday other than Christmas that they have not told us about? If so, what are they observing? If not, why avoid the Christmas tree designation? Ernesto Serano Reno

Mind your business

Re “And yet, the myth persists” (Left Foot Forward, Dec. 5):

Once again it seems to be impossible for a former Democratic Nevada legislator to resist the urge to raise taxes. The proposition put forward by Sheila Leslie defeats the very goal she wants to achieve. Business will always search for locations that have the least cost associated with locating their business in a state. It’s one of the first rules of economics. I agree with her that states, counties and municipalities should not offer “special” waivers of their tax structure to persuade a business to locate there. It was a mistake with Apple, as it was with Cabela’s. The costs to the jurisdictions usually outweigh the benefits. There are many examples of this kind that can be quoted all over the country. Usually the only beneficiaries are the politicians who approve these deals and can later brag about the jobs created. As to the quality of life issue, whenever these sorts of ratings are published most of the people living in the states or cities rated disagree when asked individually.

These ratings seem to be very subjective at best and are rarely reliable. She states, “But digging just a little deeper, the myth of low taxes/high prosperity disintegrates. In the Forbes 2013 List of the Best States for Business, Nevada is rated 36th in the country. While our state placed very well in business costs (No. 5), other rankings caused our overall status to plummet, including an educated workforce/labor supply (No. 40), quality of life (No. 47) and economic climate (No. 50).” As an example, take the specific statement, “... low taxes/high prosperity disintegrates.” High prosperity needs to be put into the context of cost of living. Someone in Nevada can live well on the median household income of $48,927. The same could not be said if you lived in New York or much of California. The bottom line is that politicians of either party will seldom be satisfied unless they can raise taxes, as their ability to lower their excessive spending seems to be some kind of genetic disease that rears its ugly head the moment they are elected.

Fred Speckmann Reno

Our Mission To publish great newspapers that are successful and enduring. To create a quality work environment that encourages people to grow professionally while respecting personal welfare. To have a positive impact on our communities and make them better places to live. Editor/Publisher D. Brian Burghart News Editor Dennis Myers Arts Editor Brad Bynum Calendar Editor Kelley Lang Editorial Intern Sage Leehey Contributors Amy Alkon, Chanelle Bessette, Megan Berner, Mark Dunagan, Bob Grimm, Ashley Hennefer, Sheila Leslie, Dave Preston, Jessica Santina, K.J. Sullivan, Kris Vagner, Bruce Van Dyke, Allison Young Creative Director Priscilla Garcia Art Director Hayley Doshay Junior Art Director Brian Breneman Design Vivian Liu, Serene Lusano, Marianne Mancina, Skyler Smith Advertising Consultants Meg Brown, Gina Odegard, Bev Savage Senior Classified Advertising Consultant Olla Ubay Office/Distribution Manager/ Ad Coordinator Karen Brooke Executive Assistant/Operations Coordinator Nanette Harker Assistant Distribution Manager Ron Neill Distribution Drivers Sandra Chhina, Ron Large, Joe Medeiros, Jesse Pike, Martin Troye, Warren Tucker, Matthew Veach, Gary White, Joseph White, Sam White General Manager/Publisher John D. Murphy President/CEO Jeff vonKaenel Chief Operations Officer Deborah Redmond Human Resource Manager Tanja Poley Business Manager Grant Ronsenquist Business Nicole Jackson, Tami Sandoval Systems Manager Jonathan Schultz Systems Support Specialist Joe Kakacek Web Developer/Support Specialist John Bisignano 708 North Center Street Reno, NV 89501 Phone (775) 324-4440 Fax (775) 324-4572 Classified Fax (916) 498-7940 Mail Classifieds & Talking Personals to N&R Classifieds, Reno Edition, 1015 20th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 or e-mail classifieds@ newsreview.com Web site www.newsreview.com Printed by Paradise Post The RN&R is printed using recycled newsprint whenever available. Editorial Policies Opinions expressed in the RN&R are those of the authors and not of Chico Community Publishing, Inc. Contact the editor for permission to reprint articles, cartoons or other portions of the paper. The RN&R is not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts. All letters received become the property of the publisher. We reserve the right to print letters in condensed form.