Letters to the editor
The subject of what to do with Hotel Clovis has been a discussion for many years now. We have had various groups trying to get it so that they might restore it to its former glory.
Problem: None of them have had enough financial backing, and would more than likely leave the job unfinished. That would result in our historical landmark becoming more of an eyesore and a sore spot.
Solution: Can anyone say casino? Yes, casino.
The Indian Nation has been expanding their casinos off of reservations across America with great success.
Now, I know what you’re saying. “A gambling house in Clovis!”
Let’s weigh the pros and cons.
Pros: It would be a jump in the efforts to revitalize downtown. It would be a spot for holding and bringing more conventions to town. It would re-establish Clovis as a stopping point for vacationers.
Cons: It would create some traffic problems in that little four-block area.
I’m of the belief that the pros heavily outweigh the cons.
The revenues from the taxes alone would help the city with much-needed raises for the fire department, police and the rest of the city employees.
Is it legal? They are considering similar projects in southern New Mexico around Anthony by El Paso. Hobbs has a race track. Albuquerque has Albuquerque Downs. Private clubs across the state have slot machines.
Why can’t we, here in Clovis, get some of the action headed to those places?
Kerry would not be appeasing terrorists
In his Aug. 26 column, Walter Williams suggests that President Bush’s critics prefer policies of “appeasement and caving in to the demands of vicious totalitarian leaders” when it comes to solving the problem of global terrorism.
I would agree that such policies of appeasement have already led to the empowerment of terrorists. Williams should remember, for example, Donald Rumsfeld’s happy meetings with Saddam Hussein in 1983.
When Iran looked meaner, the Reagan administration gave support to Iraq in the form of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was our ally against Iran, then, a mere 21 years ago.
Even when Hussein began the mass gassing of Kurds in his own country, U.S. policy was still to provide support and assistance to his regime (as reported in the New York Times on Aug. 18, 2002).
Unfortunately, President Bush has done just about the same thing as some of his predecessors in this regard: placate the despots in hopes of oil favors. Bush prefers to entertain members of the Saudi royal family in the Oval Office while our young men and women die in Baghdad.
We the citizens have the power to stop this.
There is a smarter way to win the war on terror. We are the strongest, smartest, and most innovative democracy on earth: we should get behind energy sources such as hydrogen, solar, wind, and geothermal, so that we are again independent and no longer beholden to the kings of Arabia.
John Kerry is proposing this as a step to winning the war on terror. This would be the opposite of “appeasement and caving in,” and it would be the opposite of Bush’s foreign oil policy.
Disrespecting Purple Heart is un-American
You can’t win it, and you can’t earn it. It is awarded, on the testimony of witnesses who were with you when an enemy drew blood from your body.
No witness, no Purple Heart.
The Purple Heart is awarded even for a “superficial” Band-Aid wound for two reasons: 1) it proves you reported for duty on the battlefield, in the thick of harm’s way; and 2) the missile that caused your superficial wound to bleed was fired at you with the intention of killing you. You lucked out.
After three Purple Hearts, those who run the military believe your luck has been pushed to the limit, and at your request, you can be transferred off the battlefield and out of harm’s way, regardless of the length of time you have been getting shot at.
If the enemy kills you, the Purple Heart you “earned” is sent to your next of kin.
Trivializing the Purple Heart is an un-American insult to all who have served, and especially disrespectful to our troops facing enemy fire now.