In defense of the Nanny State

To the editor:

In your Dec. 24 editorial, "Fighting the Nanny State," you scoff at "government regulations which infringe on personal liberty." Examples cited as unjustified incursions are the law requiring helmets for motorcyclists and proposed laws to outlaw motorists from texting (or other ridiculous distractions) while driving.

Excuse me?? Laws that save taxpayers millions of dollars and save the lives of other motorists are needless incursions on personal liberties? I would like the liberty of not paying my tax dollars to involve emergency and medical services because someone smashed his unprotected head as a result of a motorcycle accident. I would like the liberty to drive safely on roads without a driver hitting me or anyone else because of vehicular non-attention. I would like the liberty of knowing our police are out there giving attention to serious violations, not citing some idiot on the road who is using a BlackBerry while behind the wheel.

Having to stop at a red light or keeping speeds to safe levels, or any other driving rule, for that matter, infringes upon someone's "liberty" to do whatever he wants on the road. Thank goodness lawmakers saw fit to pass regulations that protect citizen safety. Your freedom ends when your reckless behavior endangers others or involves needless expenditure of tax dollars.

Lynne Michels

LAS VEGAS

Phone call

To the editor:

Kudos to Assemblyman Don Gustavson, R-Reno, for trying to repeal the helmet law (Review-Journal, Dec. 24). The arguments for intrusive laws like this are never proven.

My concern, however, is with state official John Johansen. Is his title the "impaired driving" safety coordinator or an "impaired" driving coordinator?

Mr. Johansen intends to lobby lawmakers to keep the helmet law on the books, thus saving millions of taxpayer dollars, and presumably lives, but intends to not take a stand on a more widespread problem -- cell phone usage while driving. How much taxpayer money is spent due to accidents caused by drivers using cell phones? Why his selective concern? Is he against motorcycles in general, or is he perhaps a "cell phone driver" and doesn't want his "rights" taken away?

Being a motorcycle rider for more than 40 years, without an accident, I contend that helmets are a distraction. They are uncomfortable, obscure peripheral vision and affect traffic sounds. However, I feel much safer driving next to a helmeted cycle rider than I do some jerk with a cell phone in his hand.

I believe Mr. Johansen's priorities are screwed up.

BOB ROCCO

PAHRUMP

Story time

To the editor:

It was both pleasant and humbling to read Jane Ann Morrison's Christmas column about "What make a memorable Christmas," as seen through the eyes of four "Nevadans." For the many of us who understand the essence of these situations and never knew how others felt about our involvement, I can only imagine the solace those of us now feel knowing the positive impact we had in how someone appreciates and views this joyous holiday.

Thank you for sharing these wonderful stories.

David F. Kallas

LAS VEGAS

Dump Lowden

To the editor:

In light of recent events, I am moved to say without reservation that Sue Lowden is unfit to lead the Nevada Republican Party.

Earlier this year, Ms. Lowden and the party leadership declined to seat delegates for the national convention. Done in the name of solidarity behind Presidential-nominee John McCain, the gesture instead served to embarrass Nevada on a national stage.

Then, on Election Day, the party's most prominent candidates, state Sens. Bob Beers and Joe Heck, fell to two political neophytes who demonstrated in debates that they had no business running.

However, Ms. Lowden's real coup de grace comes in her Monday defense of the Yucca Mountain project (Review-Journal, Dec. 22). Despite public opinion being nearly universally against the project, and public sentiment on the Nevada GOP not faring much better, Ms. Lowden insists that we negotiate with our aggressors. In accepting the mother of all NIMBYism, Ms. Lowden demonstrates just how far out of touch she and the state party have become.

Indeed, if Ms. Lowden were fit, she'd be skeptical of any claim made by a government official. In all likelihood, during her time at KLAS-TV, Channel 8, she reported on the passage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, a prime example of the government taking liberties with citizen health. Instead, she takes the word of a tour guide (a sort of entry-level lobbyist) hook, line and sinker. The fact of the matter is the science behind Yucca Mountain is shaky, at best, and in supporting the project Ms. Lowden seeks to sell the state down the river.

Therefore, I implore Ms. Lowden to resign from her post as Nevada Republican Party chairperson, for the sake of the party and the State.

JAMES BROOKS

LAS VEGAS