Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
LETTERS: Why should the city wait for AG's opinion?
To the editor:
On Jan. 8, the Review-Journal reported on the Las Vegas City Council's quagmire over whether or not city employees should be allowed to serve in the Legislature. The City Council chose to wait for the state attorney general opinion on the issue before deciding the matter.
But I don't believe the attorney general will find any constitutional problem with public employees serving in Carson City and will probably not render an opinion on the policy issue.
Thus, the City Council should on its own adopt a policy prohibiting outside employment or service in an elected capacity that is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict, or interferes in any way with the performance of the duties of the city employee.
Obviously, service in the Legislature interferes with the duty of the city employee. It requires extended time away from the work force, even if the time is uncompensated. I assume every position in the civil service is necessary to perform a public service, and if the employee is absent that public service is either not being performed or other employees are expected to work harder to fill the gap.
If the policy as I described above is set in place, each case can be reviewed on its own merits to determine whether service in the Legislature or in any other position interferes with the duties of the employee.
EDWARD COOPER
LAUGHLIN
Good reason
To the editor:
Michael W. Brown attempted to make a point in his response to Steve Mincer's letter "Hiding something?" (Jan. 11) in regard to the New Year's Eve backpack searches conducted by police during the celebrations on the Strip that night. He described various situations (all fictitious) that were in fact "unreasonable" according to the Bill of Rights.
The flaw, however in Mr. Brown's argument lies within the word "unreasonable." Police conduct that night did not fit the standard of "unreasonable." How much more "reasonable" a situation could present itself than reliable information being brought to the government that terrorists had planned to strike cities like Las Vegas during "open air events" and a homicide bomber was a likely alternative to flying a plane into the crowd?
Forget that the searches were absolutely reasonable (as permitted by the Fourth Amendment), they were done to protect me and countless other Americans who were vulnerable and in need of such searches.
Mr. Brown is viewing this world from a text book and needs to climb out of his spider hole and see the light. The imaginative scenarios he created in his letter were in fact "unreasonable"; what happened on New Years Eve in Las Vegas was not.
MARK CHAPARIAN
LAS VEGAS
Great deal
To the editor:
I hope the attempt to reform class-action lawsuits mentioned in your Sunday editorial is successful and not killed by the powerful lawyer lobby (the American Trial Lawyers Association).
A few years ago, I signed on to a class-action lawsuit against Citibank. I had some of the company's stock in my IRA. I recently received my share of the settlement: $1.71. I plan to frame the check rather than cash it.
I have no idea how many millions the attorneys received.
STAN AMES
HENDERSON
Space plan
To the editor:
In his Jan. 11 letter, Mike Kerzetski makes fun of President Bush's space plan given the current Iraqi war effort. Let me remind Mr. Kerzetski that during the 1960s, we lost more than 40,000 American heros in the Vietnam War. All the while, we were planning and executing a plan to put a man on the moon.
Without the technical gains achieved by that push, the United States would not be the powerful country it is today. And I would not be submitting this letter via the Internet, because there would not be one.
DOUG MANAGHAN
HENDERSON
No handouts
To the editor:
I am the son of immigrants from central Europe who came through Ellis Island in the early 1900s. At Ellis Island, they were examined for disease, disabilities and their ability to become future citizens of this great country. They worked very hard at menial jobs, gradually learning English and how Americans live. They never asked for special considerations, nor in all their lives did they expect or take any government assistance.
They paid for every bit of medical attention and hospitalization, and in their old age they accepted Social Security, upon which they lived until they died. A strong faith in God and this country, as well as a solid work ethic was their credo.
It is my personal belief that legal immigration must continue with the same standards for admission that my parents met. Anything less is not in the best interests of this country. I will support no person or party whose policy states otherwise.
God bless this country, and may it be populated by people like my parents, without regard to race, religion or country of origin.
RUDOLP M. JEZIK
LAS VEGAS
Private matter
To the editor:
In his commentary on Jan. 11, John Brummett cites Washington, D.C., minister Jim Wallis' complaint that Democrats need more blending of religion and politics.
Mr. Wallis correctly believes that religious faith can inspire progressive movements. However, it is that same religious faith that supported slavery, fought against the Civil Rights Act, against women's right of choice, and against the Equal Rights Amendment. It is arguments based on religious teachings that currently support deprivation of rights for gays and lesbians. On the other hand, most progressive social causes have been led by secularists.
Most Democrats are correct in not pandering to religion to obtain votes from those who are prejudiced enough to refuse to vote for those who do not assert religious faith. Religious belief is a private matter of choice that should not be a public issue. Our Constitution wisely separates religion and government. And those politicians who choose to publicly flaunt their religious faith to obtain votes, do a disservice to both religion and government.
MEL LIPMAN
LAS VEGAS
