Jeweler has shown good will in dispute

To the editor:

In response to the stories about Diana Bickel, the woman who is protesting Jack Weinstein and his business, Tower of Jewels: Though I support her right to protest, protected by our First Amendment, I don't agree with her position.

I empathize with her loss but the $1 million question -- perhaps I should say the $7,000 question -- is why on earth didn't she insure her diamond? I am assuming that the diamond and respective setting must have cost around $10,000. You don't drive a $10,000 car off the lot without insuring it. The same should go for fine jewelry purchases.

The moment she walked out of the store and wore the diamond ring she assumed some of the liability. Tower of Jewels also has some culpability. Diamonds should be secure in their settings. But as any jewelry-wearing gal knows, the rings need to be insured just in case.

Mr. Weinstein has also offered to settle the situation by selling her a new diamond "at a discounted price" and "deliver[ing] it to her." That shows good will on Tower of Jewels' part. It also appears that Ms. Bickel agreed to "compromise" by accepting a new diamond at an undisclosed discounted price. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, she began picketing.

Again, I support her right to picket, but perhaps she could be putting that time to better use.

Michelle Oshins

LAS VEGAS

Higher office

To the editor:

Is it ethical for all of these government officials who run for higher office to still receive pay for their current positions while doing nothing but campaigning for that higher office?

I think any government official, from local to federal, who seeks higher office should be forced to resign his current position when he announces his candidacy. They should not be paid by the taxpayers and their constituents to campaign.

When an ordinary citizen leaves a job for the possibility of bettering his position and it doesn't work out, he can't just go back to the old job and pick up where he left off. Yet, if a candidate loses the election, he can just fall back into his old cushy seat.

If they are so confident in their qualifications for higher office but do fail, let them re-run for their old seat they gave up. Roll the dice and take your chances. It seems like they get to play both ends against the middle with not a lot of risk.

Steve Kunda

LAS VEGAS

Money due?

To the editor:

I read with interest the results of a study that show the lifetime health care costs of unhealthy people, because they die younger, are lower than the health-care costs of healthy people (Review-Journal, Feb. 5).

This was, in fact, known at the time the many state attorneys general were extorting money from the tobacco companies.

Here in Nevada, the Legislature, rather than use the money to offset the supposed huge cost of taking care of dying smokers being borne by us taxpayers, chose instead to use the money for college scholarships for children who had and still have to take remedial classes to even function in a college environment.

As a holder of mutual funds that include shares in tobacco companies, it has cost me because of reduced dividends and stock prices. I therefore believe the state of Nevada owes me money, particularly because the ill-gotten gains were not used to offset the "increased" cost of caring for smokers and thus did not result in any reduction in taxes.

Perhaps it's time for the tobacco companies to countersue and get their money back. Our elected representatives might figure out then there really is no free lunch at the expense of business.

TERRY OSTLUND

LAS VEGAS

Voting patterns

To the editor:

The lead sentence of a front-page story in the Review-Journal on Tuesday states: "Democrat Barack Obama would narrowly defeat Republican John McCain if they were matched today in the presidential election." This is one of the most deceptive story leads I have read in quite some time.

I thought the story would reveal how the polls break down in the various red and blue states to award Electoral College votes "if the election were held today." Of course, I was disappointed.

The Associated Press seems to have forgotten that we are a republic and we do not elect our president based on popular vote, but on Electoral College votes. Instead, the story was just another example of the press creating "news" by taking a poll to generate something to write about.

Obama leading in popular vote 48 percent to 42 percent is meaningless if he wins big in a few Democratic states and loses by a little in all the rest of the states, thereby getting fewer Electoral College votes.

How about a state-by-state analysis that predicts electoral votes: McCain v. Obama and McCain v. Clinton. Now that would be informative.

John M. McGrail

LAS VEGAS