To the editor:
On Tuesday, I drove over to see the opening of CityCenter. I have been driving past the site and monitoring construction for the past few years. Now, finally, my big chance to walk around and see the place for myself.
As I walked the long, winding sidewalks and bridges of concrete, glass and metal, I got a weird feeling. I was no longer in Las Vegas in the year 2009, but in a strange land sometime in the future, not inhabited by humans, maybe robots. Everything about CityCenter is cold. No joy, just a stark grayness.
All you see in every direction is concrete, glass and metal. There are small patches of plant life, but no sense that humans had any hand in planting them. Walking around, I felt like I was in a post-apocalypse science fiction movie, where machines run everything, and humans are there only to consume — or maybe be consumed.
Cary De Grosa
To the editor:
In response to Daniel Olivier’s Friday letter regarding sporting events and free television, it’s clear he’s unclear on the entire concept of "free TV."
For starters, even "free" TV isn’t free. Advertisers provide the income that allows these shows to be provided to the public. In turn, this allows the networks the income to pay for the rights to broadcast the shows.
Mr. Olivier suggests that college football games of national interest be available to all. Who decides exactly what a game of national interest is? I personally couldn’t care less about Michigan vs. Ohio State, but might like to watch USC vs. Oregon. What if they both played at 10 a.m.?
One might expect that a USC broadcast would get far better ratings on the West Coast than a Florida game. So now, not only would Mr. Olivier dictate somebody choose which game is of "national interest," he would also make it impossible for the networks to maximize their revenue stream by broadcasting the game that held the most regional importance to the area.
A successful business is one that has created a service or a product which people are willing to pay for. People are clearly willing to pay for the ability to watch a multitude of programming. If you aren’t willing to pay, then you simply have to deal with what is offered to you for "free."
One suggestion, though, for Mr. Olivier, who lives in Bullhead City, Ariz.: A quick drive across the bridge to a Laughlin casino, and you can probably see the game you want for free — and get drinks to boot.
To the editor:
Some follow-up to your recent letters regarding child behavior:
Most children are a reflection of their parents and the way they are taught discipline. Several months ago, we were in a large restaurant, and a child’s constant temper tantrum was on display.
After several minutes of this screaming, a waitress escorted an elderly couple to a booth in the bar area. The elderly woman was crying and the gentleman was irate. Someone inquired as to the problem and the waitress relayed that the couple were seated next to the spoiled child and quietly asked if they could be moved out of harm’s way. As the waitress was picking up their food to move it, the father of the child jumped up and start chastising the couple for moving.
It is no wonder the kid was a spoiled brat. He was following in the footsteps of his idiot father.
In another instance, we were dining in a smaller restaurant and a couple with four children sat down in a large booth that was in close vision of our seats. These children were some of the most pleasant we have ever been around. They were well-behaved, courteous and appeared very happy. Their parents were holding hands and enjoying life. This is what raising children should be all about.
In another booth in the same restaurant were two mothers sitting with two boys and a girl. The boys were tearing the table sugar wrappers apart and throwing them at each other; the girl was splashing her water on the table while the parents gabbed away without one word to stop the bratty behavior. Their booth and the area around it was a mess. This is not what raising children should be about.
Parents who allow this type of behavior are not only a problem for other diners, but it is a nasty hardship on the people who serve them and have to clean up their mess. My mother and sister were waitresses, and I guarantee there isn’t a big enough tip for these situations.
Matter of force
To the editor:
I am tired of waiting for the media to correct a wrong assumption that has existed for 30 years.
When a person says he is against the government giving money to people in need, that does not mean the person is against helping those in need. It simply means that he is against forcing his neighbor to give.
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that when a conservative believes in a worthy cause, he will try to persuade his neighbor to support the cause, too. But if he fails to persuade, he walks away. On the other hand, when a liberal fails to persuade you to support his cause, he doesn’t walk away. He recruits and conspires with politicians to force his neighbor to support his cause.
When you say you want the government to do this or that for you, you are really saying you want your neighbor to do something for you. In other words, "I want my neighbor to give me his money so I can do good things — and if he doesn’t, I want someone to force him to give me his money."
And they call conservatives self-righteous.