Advertisement

Efficient administrator

Robin Rudolph, Nye County deputy public administrator, told me she is running again for this responsibility. I told her how grateful I was for her kind call to me at the death of my cousin, Henry Edward Cornwall III.

She explained he left my brother and me in charge of his affairs and responsible for his funeral and recipient of his estate.

Ms. Rudolph gave us a lot of help with the burial plans, gathered his belongings, asked us for our plans and even helped notify the Veterans Administration and was responsible for a complete veterans funeral.

When we arrived for the funeral, Ms. Rudolph took us to his living quarters, to the warehouse where his belongings were stored, let us view it all and held auctions for his numerous things.

After this she made sure we received my cousin's money he left us in the banks and the money for the auctions.

She is the most efficient person I have ever met and the kindest, and I must say very pretty.

I also was impressed by her big gold badge.

My cousin was my good childhood friend. We had many childhood experiences and we were very close.

I've carried him on my back, after losing our carfare in the snow -- a long way home.

Thanks for listening to me.

MARY F. ELDRED

Why do we need an airport?

Charlie Gronda has worked for 10 years to get an airport built in Pahrump. I asked him, "Why?" He said to bring business, jobs and growth to Pahrump.

Maybe an airport will do that, maybe not.

Why does someone move to a small remote place and then clamor for growth? There is lots of growth in Las Vegas. If that is what one wants, why not live there? Or, better yet, Los Angeles. Lots of airports, etc. there.

It is surprising that Pahrump doesn't already have a public general aviation airport. Perhaps the existing private one is enough.

If an airport was needed, viable, profitable, wanted, might not private enterprise have built one long ago?

Why can't or won't the town board or the town manager tell us how much it will cost the town to lease the land and maintain the airport? The FAA will tell us after April 20. Why then? That's when the period for public comment ends.

Spending $19 million of public money, of which 5 percent ($950,000) is Pahrump's up-front obligation, and unknown or unrevealed amounts in future costs is cause for concern in this time of economic chaos. And that's just for phase one.

WILLIAM RICHES

Appyling Kiker's argument

Ms. Kiker assumes the inviolability of our constitutionally protected right to property. This is fair given our theoretical heritage. However, wouldn't a consistent application of this argument demand a reconsideration of the government's intervention in the affairs of slave owners, who could reason, consistent with Ms. Kiker's argument, that property -- African slaves -- was being infringed upon?

What's implied is the following argument. Animals are considered property under U.S. law and therefore this state of affairs is ethically justified. It's circular, and a truly remarkable position. If this line of reasoning were applied consistently throughout our nation's history, maintaining barriers to a woman's entrance into the public sphere would likewise find a defense by application of Ms. Kiker's principle.

I presume she will reject this logical extension of her argument. However, in order to do so, she will have to bring in external principles, and normative judgments that have evolved and better reflect "right" and "wrong" as we understand it today (or what ethical consistency would require of us).

Nearly 10 billion land animals are killed annually in the U.S. alone for the most trivial of reasons. Billions of birds live in chronic pain brought on by their genetic-manipulation-induced bulk. Female cows are impregnated only to have their babies taken from them shortly after birth to prevent bonding and subsequently sold to the veal industry. Millions of companion animals live without homes and are killed annually because we insist that breeding and domesticating animals in accordance with prevailing tastes is ethically justified.

Our refusal to consider the interests of animals (other than human) in our moral deliberations reflects a prejudice. Peter Singer revealed the errors in this kind of reasoning many years ago in his seminal book, "Animal Liberation." This prejudice, speciesism, has been further criticized by others, including Gary L. Francione and Robert Nozick.

It is insufficient to argue, as Ms. Kiker implies, that the status quo ought to be unassailable. Her son's invaluable service in defense of our nation cannot be considered to be in service, categorically, of how things have always been done. Indeed, isn't it reasonable to laud the women and men who wear the uniform because it is through their actions that our ability to reject bad assumptions and prejudices in defense of what is right today is possible?

ALEX MALONAS