Forget fights over brothel advertising
To the editor:
So our attorney general feels a duty "to protect the will of Nevadans to place reasonable restrictions on brothel advertising," thereby costing taxpayers (so far) about $50,000 in attorney fees ("AG's office, Clark County must pay attorneys fees," Friday).
Has some poll been conducted to ascertain what the will of Nevadans is on this issue?
I speculate most of the citizens of Clark and Washoe counties would agree that a legal, licensed, taxpaying brothel business should be able to exercise its right to advertise like any other business.
I'm weary of government entities pursuing these losing First Amendment cases, and I'm angered that any resources or taxpayer funds are being used to do it. There are a host of ills and crimes that our law enforcement personnel should be pursuing. This isn't one of them.
Michael A. Dimmick
LAS VEGAS
Party politics
To the editor:
With CNN pre-screening the questions asked at the recent Democratic presidential debate at UNLV debate, even to the point of substituting the inane question posed to Sen. Hillary Clinton as to "diamonds or pearls," just how ignorant can the American voter be to use these charades as a guide in the voting booth?
America has real issues. The world in which we reside has real issues. Real issues require tough decision-making and, at times, sacrifice and/or personal cost. The thrusting and parrying carried on by the Democratic candidates in no way demonstrated a willingness to do either.
For example, when Sen. Clinton was asked the question relating to accusations by Sen. Barack Obama as to her refusal to answer a question directly without parsing her reply, all she did was dance around the question and lead poor Wolf Blitzer down a road of non-redemption. Talk about a moderator ill-suited for a job that requires some sort of control.
The problem with this and other similar debates -- and I refer to both sides of the aisle -- is that politicians cannot tell the truth. The truth is always going to gain one vote while losing another, and politicians want both votes. Thus, unless one of the herd finally answers the question with a direct answer, none of us will ever know who we are electing, other than that they belong to a particular party.
Personally, I would rather stay at home on Election Day than vote for an unknown.
Jack L. Kane
LAS VEGAS
Vegas terror
To the editor:
It is amazing how much misunderstanding and lack of common sense is in the full 16-page Rand Corp. case study on Las Vegas' risks from terrorism (referenced in the Saturday article "Las Vegas ranks ninth on list of likely targets for terrorists"). For instance, the study includes discussion of risks to Las Vegas "subway stations" (huh?) and non-hotel "central business districts" (whatever that means in a Southern Nevadan context).
I found especially absurd its assertion that a nuclear bomb detonation would have only about 16 times the economic impact of a small truck bomb.
Still, this is not as chilling as the fact that the 95-page report the study is part of never once estimates the lives that might be lost in any of this, only the financial cost. Surely the government can do better in getting value for its research dollars.
ROB SOULE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
Casino tax
To the editor:
The comments from MGM Mirage Chairman Terry Lanni at the Nevada Development Authority luncheon about a free meal need to be redirected to his own industry (Friday Review-Journal). The new casinos under construction will place a tremendous burden on the infrastructure over the next few years, and it is reasonable to expect that they should pay for it. However to add insult to injury, many of them are receiving a tax break for "green" construction.
Mr. Lanni's call for a broad-based business tax would disproportionately place the tax in areas not directly responsible for the growth. An increase in the Nevada gaming tax, or a state corporate income tax that would tap into the worldwide earnings of the casinos, would be better alternatives to have than pay for the problems they are creating.
HenRy Schmid
LAS VEGAS
Good book
To the editor:
I read with some dismay Keith Hubbell's letter ("Shrug it off," Friday) in which he disparages Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged." It is patently obvious that Mr. Hubbell has not even read this novel, for if he had, then he would know that the story does not declare "all government regulation is harmful and destructive."
May "Atlas Shrugged" be as popular and relevant over the next 50 years as it has been since its release.
Warren Willis Jr.
LAS VEGAS
