LETTERS:
Like granny, terrorist treatment is getting old
To the editor:
I can relate to Phyllis Dintenfass, the 62-year-old Wisconsin woman who lost it with airport security screeners after being wanded and patted down as though she were a subversive intent on bringing down the United States ("Sexual assault victim could go to prison," Sunday Vin Suprynowicz column).
Advertisement
I get the full treatment, too, as revenge for not being able to take my shoes off before going through the metal detector. I nicely tell the Transportation Security Administration workers that I will be glad to take them off if I can sit down. I'm 66, and I have nerve problems with my feet and enough arthritis in my hands to make it a real chore to untie the ugly oxfords I must wear in order to walk, even when sitting down. So I am escorted to the area where other suspected terrorists are going through the whole-body pat down and wand treatment.
When I am on my way to a fun trip, I can handle it better than on return, when I might be tired and cross. At McCarran International Airport, after TSA workers have satisfied themselves that the old granny is not a threat to others, I smile and say to them: "My, I feel so much safer, don't you?" Some get the joke, others do not.
On the home trip it is more difficult to keep my sense of humor, so I must remember Mr. Suprynowicz's column, as I don't want to end up being a certified criminal.
I fully expect authorities will throw the book at the unfortunate Ms. Dintenfass. This seems to be the prevailing mentality now: punish whomever dares to protest against ridiculous methods that have caught no terrorists to date. We can't find Osama bin Laden, but we can surely show the old ladies who is boss.
Dorothy Jones
LAS VEGAS
Fairy tale, not theory
To the editor:
Tuesday's report that President Bush endorses the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools shows that even the highest in the land are capable of sheer stupidity.
If this fairy tale of a theory masquerading as science ever gets mandated in schools, it's time to pack our bags. I want my son to have the best education available, with all the attendant advantages for a job in the world market. I doubt that he would ever be taken seriously in any kind of science or technology career -- once the rest of the world stops snickering.
As a nation, we are already sadly behind in both of these subjects, and I don't understand why these half-baked fictions are given the time of day.
Audrey Freedman
LAS VEGAS
More hand-wringing
To the editor:
I see the revisionist historians are at it again. Research conducted 60 years after the fact indicates that the United States didn't need to use atomic weapons on Japan during World War II ("Atomic bombing wasn't necessary, after all," Wednesday).
According to professor Tsuyoshi Hasegawa of the University of California, Santa Barbara, the Japanese military was terrified that the Red Army had entered the war against Japan. Maybe he forgot that it was the U.S. military that handed the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy defeat after defeat all across the Pacific. Although the campaign was costly for American forces, the Japanese losses nearly wiped out a generation of men.
Now, a battered and weary Red Army enters the conflict and the Japanese are ready to throw in the towel? What happened to the Japanese rhetoric that they would defend their homeland down to the last citizen?
Let's suppose for a moment that professor Hasegawa's study is correct. History is clear about what happened to countries occupied by the Red Army after World War II. Could we have saved Japan as a country by forcing its surrender before the Red Army had the chance to occupy? Ridiculous theory? You bet. Just as silly as this one offered by professor Hasegawa.
The atomic attacks on Japan were absolutely horrific events. But remember, we didn't start the war. We ended it. Clearly, President Truman's decision was correct and 60 years of hand-wringing doesn't change a thing.
Quentin Aukeman
LAS VEGAS
Price controls
To the editor:
Michael A. Dimmick, who wrote Tuesday's letter to the editor claiming that Medicare is an example of a free market failure, needs to open a textbook on economics.
In a free market, the providers of a product or service (in this case doctors) set their own prices. Medicare sets maximum prices for services, so it is not an example of the free market. It is an example of government-imposed price controls. Price controls are the source of all the ills about which Mr. Dimmick complains.
In the case of Medicare, the government-imposed price is set lower than what the price would be in a free market. The result is exactly what anyone with a basic understanding of economics would predict: the lower price increases demand and decreases supply, leading to shortages and rationing. Demand increases because patients are encouraged to visit the doctor for trivial complaints. Supply decreases because some doctors will refuse to treat Medicare patients. The resulting shortage takes the form of substandard care. Rationing is seen in the long waits for treatment.
Given the low prices set by Medicare, I doubt many medical service providers are in it for the money. Most people who pursue medical careers do so out of a desire to help others. In my opinion, they treat Medicare patients so the patients have some access to medical care. The providers do the best they can with the limited resources supplied by Medicare. That has to be very frustrating.
The "unseen hands of the free market" do not go anywhere near federal pockets. Anyone seeking governmental influence is not participating in a free market. The "free" means free of governmental interference with prices.
The responsibility for Medicare's woes does lie with the federal bureaucrats; they demonstrate considerable hubris. Governments have been imposing price controls at least since the days of the Roman Empire. The result is the same every time, yet politicians bizarrely insist that this time, price controls will finally work.
There is no free lunch. There are only trade-offs. You can get it cheap, or you can get high quality, but not both.
