Ensign recognizes PFC Jon Witney

I recently learned about your son Jon's heroic efforts in Germany, where he saved a family from a burning apartment and helped bring the rest of the residents to safety.

I can only imagine how proud you must be of Jon's courage under such difficult circumstances.

I want to thank you for raising such a wonderful young man. It can't be easy for you to have him so far away, but on behalf of the United States, I want to offer you my heartfelt gratitude.

This nation continues to be the beacon of freedom and hope because of the bravery of soldiers like Jon, who step up to shoulder the weight of our democracy.

It is also because of mothers like you who spend days and nights worrying and making their own sacrifices so their loved ones can serve.

I join you in praying for Jon's continued safety. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if we can ever be of assistance.

JOHN ENSIGN

United States Senator

Just doing my job

I would like to thank you for your coverage of the events of Sep. 30, 2008. If it wasn't for you and your paper, I would not be receiving the recognition of Sen. Ensign.

Believe me, it's a huge honor to be recognized by a man of his position, especially when all I was doing was my job. If it had been anyone else in that position, he would have done the same thing I did.

But overall, I would like to thank you for your support of the troops. It's good to know that there are such people, particularly in my hometown. It makes me very proud to call Pahrump my home.

As soon as I get the letter from Sen. Ensign, I will forward you a copy of it and any other information that pertains to it.

Once again, thank you for all the support and coverage. I wish you and all your family and friends the best.

PFC. JON C. WHITNEY

Military police, U.S. Army, Germany

Questioning 'challenge'

A Feb. 18 article titled "Animal enthusiasts challenge Humane Society agenda" is a rather evasive response from local "animal enthusiasts" to the Humane Society of the United States' actions in Nevada. This response has nothing of any real substance to it -- it's a string of assertions disguised as an "argument."

The position against HSUS seems to be a textbook example of a fallacy of assertion: Bold assertions are made without any substantiating proof predicated on the communicator's assumed "authority" rather than mere opinion. Deconstructing the article and thus exposing its errors illuminates this.

"The group, speaking in support of animal welfare, pointed out that the Humane Society is a national lobbying group, is not affiliated with any of the humane societies or shelters in Nevada and does not represent the interests of Nevada voters."

Perusing HSUS' Web site, in which it details legislative proposals being supported by the organization, the only law -- it's currently pending in Nevada's state legislative body -- being supported by HSUS, would "prohibit the import, export, transport, sale, receipt, acquisition, purchase or possession of any wildlife that is taken, possessed or sold in violation of a law or regulation of the United States, an Indian tribe, another state or territory or a foreign country; increases civil penalties for poaching; allows for the revocation of permits for people convicted of poaching."

Presumably, these "animal enthusiasts" don't intend to argue that existing federal law, for example, is somehow an affront to the interests of Nevada voters. However, this seems to be their contention, given that the legislation in question is primarily an enforcement mechanism for current law. It would seem that the anger here is quite misdirected. It may be a means to circumvent a reasoned, democratic process by inserting an argumentum ad hominem into the legislative framework: If you support putting teeth into existing law, you also support HSUS, and therefore you don't want people to eat the bodies of nonhuman animals.

This conclusion certainly doesn't follow from the legislation in question. It's a veiled slippery-slope argument at best.

"The group ... requested lawmakers look to Nevada animal owners and caretakers, those who are hands-on with animals, to help shape any proposed legislative measures put forth by national animal rights groups like PETA or the Humane Society."

The initial sentence is reasonable but its substance is belied by the deception in the latter half of the sentence: HSUS and PETA are not "shaping the legislation." It's existing law, and it certainly isn't "animal rights" legislation as these "animal enthusiasts" conceive of the concept.

Two assertions follow, one fact, one ad hominem. It is correct to argue that if the property status of nonhuman animals was eliminated, various forms of exploitation would end: buying and selling "pets" and "food animals," for example. However, the legislation would not begin to accomplish this end.

Juvenility then enters the discussion and the assertion is made: "Many animal rights groups have an agenda of removing the status of animals as property, and they will not be satisfied until everybody is a grass-eating, carrot-eating vegan. We need to be vigilant and stop the insane, lunatic animal rights legislation."

Considering two of the sources, Zuzana Kukol ("president of Rexano, a nonprofit organization based in Henderson, which supports responsible exotic animal ownership") and Chris Vaught ("Vaught owns and works with Australian Kelpies, a herding breed of dog"), the motivation is obviously financial. (That's an ad hominem argument.).

Perhaps not though. I don't believe the passage of this legislation would harm the businesses of these gentlemen. So why the outrage?

Any argument I make would be based on inferences and assumptions, so I'll refrain. However, given the lack of depth here, it seems reasonable to assume that, in keeping with most discussions on the topic of taking the suffering of all animals (human and nonhuman) seriously, reliance on baseless assumptions (just because everyone makes the same assumption, that doesn't make it any less ridiculous) and rhetoric in place of reason (you know, that capacity that makes us "special" and "unique") is the preferred method.

ALEX MELONAS

Washington, D.C.

Library funding in Pahrump

Today, I was informed by the head librarian in Pahrump that Nye County government has passed a rule that all "snowbirds" must buy a "yearly permit" or a library card to consistently use the Internet or other reference and entertainment facilities at the Pahrump Community Library, which could be against the intent of any federal financing for all materials, books, or assistance given to any visitor from another state, county or country.

The cost for this "yearly permit or pass" is said to be about $50 per year, and the cash collected may not even be reported to any federal agency responsible for the distribution of federal funding in all county, state, city or college libraries.

If legal, then all counties should adopt this new user's rule, since I'm sure all county administrators, nationwide, may need more gifts or secret revenue for their under-worked and overpaid librarians, who seem to be mostly un-American idiots in Pahrump.

But I'm sure any educated attorney, or federal judge would find this policy or new rule to be un-American and against several federal and state laws about discrimination in public financed facilities toward any visitors from out of town, especially to homeless veterans or to senior citizens with general delivery addresses.

Actually, I feel this policy is focused on me -- because I write and have written about various problems in the local library, who think they also have the right or the duty to eavesdrop on any citizen, if they desire, for whatever reason they can rationalize.

But, if Nye County really wants to increase their revenue from snowbirds, maybe they should install a toll gate on all state highways entering their kingdom -- or greet them better, since snowbirds frequent the local casinos and improve the local economy.

JAMES H. ARMISTEAD

Presumption of innocence

Recently allegations of misconduct on the part of Nye County Sheriff's Office Dep. William Tidmarsh have been well publicized, and he has been left to bear that harsh scrutiny in a most humiliating and public manner.

In his defense, I will offer that Tidmarsh is a graduate of the Nye County Sheriff's Office Training Academy, and has been faithfully serving our communities for almost two years while assigned to both patrol and the SWAT team.

While the safety of the public is our primary concern, it is equally important to remember that the allegation against Tidmarsh may ultimately be proven false, and that Tidmarsh is entitled to and enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

And, while it is prudent to act in the best interests of the public that we serve, let's not rush to judgment so quickly that Tidmarsh's reputation and service are disregarded in the rush to investigate this complaint offered by a comparatively anonymous figure, whose reputation, credibility, and motivations have yet to be held up to similar public scrutiny.

The Nye County Law Enforcement Association and our affiliated union representatives, the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs-Nevada Division, CWA Local 9111, AFL-CIO, are committed to the highest degree of professionalism, and we are dedicated to serving our communities.

We support William Tidmarsh during this time when these allegations have been levied against him, and will continue to do so throughout the course of the investigation into the complaint against him.

TRAVIS J. HUGGINS

president, Nye County Law Enforcement Association

DON RUIZ

field representative

California Organization of Police and Sheriffs

Rebuttal deserved

Ms. Hendrickson's letter, "Anywhere else I'd laugh," deserves rebuttal because of its gross mischaracterizations and absurd conclusions.

I've been a part of the "firearms culture" for roughly 30 years. I have been a part of that culture in the military, law enforcement, and as a private citizen. I have trained military, police and civilians in the use of firearms. I have often heard people like Hendrickson mischaracterize the facts and I have reached some conclusions as to why.

Hendrickson decided she is incompetent to own/use a firearm. Having made that decision, she feels others with firearms exercise "power" over her -- and that scares her.

She then feels compeled to structure contrived arguments to support her irrational fear. These contrived arguments are designed to "prove" that no one "needs" firearms. She works from a fear-driven predisposed position.

Hendrickson begins her distortions by averring that the Right To Keep And Bear Arms (RTKABA) is about wild animals, Indians, and the Brits. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence. To this day he remains history's most brilliant expositor of individual rights. His closest friend was James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution." So what did Jefferson say about the RTKABA?

He said, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

One can scour the historical record for remarks by the Founding Fathers regarding the RTKABA and you will not find anything about animals, Indians, or the British. Statements made by various Founders are all in agreement with Jefferson. I wonder -- why would Ms. Hendrickson completely misrepresent this fact?

Hendrickson then portrays military and law enforcement as the only ones who are skilled with firearms. Having taught firearms to men and women in both professions, I can tell you this is but another misrepresentation.

Most police officers only train to the bare minimum that will allow them to continue working. And believe me, the level of firearms training for law enforcement is woeful.

Most officers who are a part of the "gun culture" consider their agency's firearms training a joke.

Several years ago two LAPD officers engaged an armed homeless man from six feet away. The officers fired 44 rounds. Only two struck the suspect.

Statistics show that in armed confrontations, private citizens have a higher "hit ratio" than law enforcement officers. Gee, how come Hendrickson didn't tell us that?

Several months ago I was speaking with a Green Beret about using a handgun to "clear" confined spaces, in which a rifle is too long to use effectively. He told me that he makes do with the rifle and never uses his handgun. He said his unit trains so rarely with handguns that he is not confident with it. Oops, looks like Hendrickson doesn't know much about military training either.

(I mean no criticism of the military. Their mission is simply different than the day-to-day concerns of civilians.)

Hendrickson next claims she has never met anyone who owns a gun that she would trust to "protect" her. She apparently doesn't get out much. Down the road from Pahrump is Front Sight; the largest civilian firearms facility in America. Many of its rangemasters, instructors, and line coaches live in Pahrump.

But frankly, I don't believe Hendrickson would admit she's met competent gun owners. Such an admission would contradict her fear-driven predisposed position and open up her Alice In Wonderland conclusions to rational scrutiny.

And finally, Hendrickson has conveniently overlooked the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Heller v. The District of Columbia, in which the high court stated in unequivocal terms that owning a firearm, and carrying it exposed for lawful purposes, is a constitutionally protected right.

Apparently Hendrickson believes that in order to attend town meetings the citizens of Pahrump should surrender their constitutional RTKABA. How ironic would it be if a citizen was required to surrender a constitutional right in order to participate in self-governance when the Declaration of Independence states that the only legitimate function of government is the preservation of our rights.

DAVE CHAMPION

Neth's financial mess

Regarding the story in the Pahrump Valley Times (Feb. 20) about Henry Neth wanting the Nye County Commission to reopen the contract with Dr. Bady and the county and his lease of the Pahrump Medical Center Building.

Why should anyone listen to anything Neth says about financial matters when he is a self-confessed embezzler of investor's money? (See story in the R-J July 5, 2008, and others in the PVT and Mirror in July 2008).

Bady had the expertise and ability to open a languishing, deteriorating building and provide medical services to the Pahrump community when no one else came forward to do so.

The commission needs to leave Bady alone.

When his contract ends in 2010, then it can be looked at and revised to reflect current real estate rental prices.

Commissioner Borasky was right in this matter -- Dr. Bady has done nothing wrong to warrant the commission looking into revising the contract.

Why was Neth awarded a seat on the board of the Desert View Regional Hospital when he has this kind of financial mess in his background?

One would question the integrity and decision-making ability of the hospital management. But, I guess this just parallels what is continuing to happen on the national scene with the banking and other industries needing taxpayer bailouts.

I challenge the newspapers here to look into this story and find out if Neth has paid any of the investors the "$725,000 plus interest and attorney's fees" he agreed to settle the debt back in 2008.

Is this another case of the "good ole' boy" syndrome as they look the other way when one of their own commits a crime?

GARY MICHALSKY

What happens

to that big hole?

Like many, I am glad to see that President Obama is cutting funding to the Yucca Mountain project.

Dumping toxic waste in my backyard never really appealed to me.

But if, by some miracle, Yucca Mountain is forever abandoned, what would become of the hole that they've already dug?

Maybe Obama will use it to bury all of his broken campaign promises!

MARTY REEVES