To the editor:
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the cause of “police brutality.” When a duly sworn officer of the law tells you to do something, do it. You have done something or been pointed out by someone, or match a description of a suspect. In other words, you have attracted the officer’s attention, by deed, actions or description.
On the street is not the place to argue your innocence or guilt. There is time for that after you have done what the officer requested. If you tense up, become argumentative or decide to run, you are opening yourself up to a whole series of new charges and consequences, some of which can put you at risk of bodily harm or even death. It doesn’t matter to the police if it takes one or five of them to get you to comply, you will comply. How much punishment you want to incur in order for this to happen is strictly dependent on your actions.
There have been many occasions when a person has been cuffed and detained, but ultimately released. If you think you are upset about being unlawfully arrested and your adrenalin is up, imagine how the officers feel, when for all they know, you will cause them great bodily harm if you should get loose. They are doing their job to the best of their ability, with little or no information about your background or your intentions.
At that point, your job is to do what they tell you, and perhaps things will go in your favor without you being taken to the ground, tased, bitten by a police dog or worse. As long as police feel safe around you, then questions will be asked and information taken that might ultimately lead to your release and an apology for your temporary detainment. Walk in their shoes for a mile, and maybe you would see the wisdom of not escalating an incident that might be just an honest mistake on their part.
Comply, don’t die!
Let Dotty’s, Uber thrive
To the editor:
This country was established on certain principles, one of which was a capitalistic system of free enterprise. If you had a better product or gave better service, you could succeed and prosper. Governmental regulation became necessary to prevent monopolistic entities from destroying that initiative and dictating product and service quality. And that is how it should be.
Now we face government interference to benefit monopolistic tactics (“County commissioners approve rules affecting taverns with slots,” Dec. 4 Review-Journal). If Dotty’s and its ilk can produce a better product and provide better service, why should our “unbiased” public servants be allowed to prohibit that and protect the entrenched interests? Of course, that is nothing new here.
Another case in point: Uber.
Let free enterprise work. Allow the capitalistic system to benefit the consumer.
Calling out cabs
To the editor:
The Uber situation is one more reason why I resent the local cab companies. A second reason: A few years ago there was a wonderful service called the Henderson Connection. For $40, a driver would take me and my wife to the airport, then pick us up and take us home when we returned.
Well, it didn’t take long for the taxi companies to get rid of the Henderson Connection. They’ve even managed to keep SuperShuttle out of the residential pick-up market. SuperShuttle thrives in many other cities. In Los Angeles, two people can go from Hollywood to Burbank Airport for $30. They pick you up at home, and they also cruise the airport picking up passengers and taking them home, for the same price.
One more taxi issue I’ve experienced: After interviewing guests on my radio show, I could never get them a cab. It was very embarrassing. Something’s rotten in the state of Nevada.
To the editor:
The midterm election was punctuated by extreme nastiness and an exorbitant amount of money. What can we do to change that landscape? We call for transparency in so many ways, from publishing salaries and addresses of public officials to every event in their lives. But where is the transparency in political action committees?
We should demand that every PAC and think tank be transparent. Every member should be listed, and all the money that comes into those groups should be out in the open. It should be important that citizens should know who is trying to buy the government and how much money people are putting into these groups. The 501(c)(4) laws were passed for charitable giving only. It was changed by the IRS in 1959, under the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
That might have been OK when there was not so much money in politics. But changing the wording to “mostly” charitable leaves room for manipulation. The lawyers in these PACs know how to get around the wording. Go back to the original writing and make it so the IRS does not have to determine if something is political or not. Anything political, in any form, should not be in this set of laws.
Just as we require truth in advertising, we should require truth in political advertising. Some of the information is lies, and other is so distorted from the truth that it may as well be lies. Make the PACs accountable for what they say. Put in place some substantial fines for those groups who are caught not telling the truth. We have to find some way that all the people can participate, not just the wealthy and super-wealthy.