Fine cellphone users even more

To the editor:

I see that Nevada, through its various law enforcement agencies, is cracking down on vehicles that haven't been registered with the state after 30 days. The fine is $1,000. In my opinion, this is a good thing, as it will raise revenue and put a stop to the free ride that a lot of car owners currently enjoy.

As we all know (or should) by now, there is also a push in Nevada to stop cellphone use while driving. Fines start at $50 and increase to $250 for the third offense. In my opinion, this is also a good thing, as I hope it will save a life or two.

My problem is that it appears the priority placed on these offenses by the Legislature is upside down.

Vehicle registration is a status requirement that raises revenue to pay for government services. Cracking down on cellphone use is an attempt to deter the use of these devices to save lives and property damage caused by distracted drivers. A $50 or $150 fine deters nothing, as is evident by the fact that many drivers continue to use cellphones, as any casual observer will verify.

Most cellphone plans cost more than $150 so irresponsible drivers who violate the new law simply see this as an overhead item and continue with their talking and texting. I asked a friend recently why he was still using his cellphone in light of the new law. His answer: "There are no consequences if I get caught."

If we really want to stop cellphone use and the potential carnage it can cause, the Legislature needs to put some teeth in the law. If a motorist knows that he can get hit with a $1,000 or $2,000 fine if he texts while driving, he might consider leaving his phone in the trunk.

Now those are strong consequences.

James Armstrong

Las Vegas

Good read

To the editor:

Good, thought-provoking articles in Thursday's Review-Journal, as usual.

The first was the front-page report of the GSA debacle. This is a case of members of a government agency getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar. From their viewpoint, it is business as usual. The proof of this is in the remarks by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who said they should "use common sense." That is inside-the-beltway code for "hide it better."

As you pointed out in your editorial on the topic, the federal government "blows through $10 billion per day, borrowing more than a quarter of it."

This means to me that the people we elect and send to Washington for the purpose of controlling our money aren't doing a very good job of it. Instead, Sen. Reid and Rep. Shelley Berkley are in town doing whatever they do, no matter how ineffective it is.

Finally, there was Sen. Reid's admonition that TSA employees, and all government workers, should "smile and say hello" to travelers. Isn't this the same Sen. Reid who said, "You can literally smell the tourists as they come into the Capitol building"?

Just asking, that's all.

B. Wilderman

Las Vegas

King Obama

To the editor:

President Obama has previously blamed George W. Bush, the wealthy and Congress for the country's woes, and now he disapproves of the U.S. Supreme Court.

It appears that he would like to abolish our constitutional republic and declare himself benevolent dictator. Look how much we would save without legislators, judges and elections.

We should get lower taxes, right?

Don Davis

Las Vegas

Wild West

To the editor:

It seems the central issue in the Florida shooting of Trayvon Martin is the distinction between self-defense and aggression.

It appears that George Zimmerman was the aggressor, and Mr. Martin was the one exercising his right to defend himself. Mr. Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down, despite instructions from the police to not continue pursuit. At some point, Mr. Zimmerman confronted him, and Trayvon defended himself and was murdered.

Where do you draw the line? A burglar breaks into my house and I shoot him -- justified. I walk into a bar, call a black man a racial slur, he punches me in the face, I draw my concealed weapon (for which I have a permit) and kill him. Is that self-defense? He swung first.

Before you know it, we will all be carrying guns, like the Wild West. We will all have sidearms and shoot-outs at high noon.

The NRA and other gun lobbies love this. It's great for business.

A young man is walking down the street with headphones on, listening to music. A stranger calls out to him to get directions, but he doesn't hear. The man comes up behind him and touches his arm. The young man turns around and shoots him.

Come on people, where is this going?

Sean A. Murphy

Las Vegas

Evil Big Oil

To the editor:

It is exasperating to continually read letters and commentaries regarding the benefits of additional drilling for oil in the United States (Kevin Alexander's Wednesday letter).

Contrary to popular belief, I submit that additional drilling will not decrease the cost of oil in the United States. It will serve only to increase profits and line the pockets of Big Oil even more.

The fact is, oil that now comes out of the ground in the United States does not stay in the United States. Our oil is sold on the open market to the highest bidder. For example, most of the oil coming out of Alaska right now is sold to Japan.

I challenge the oil companies and the media to muster some civic responsibility and make this point clear to the American public.

We have been misled long enough. Additional drilling is not the answer.

The only way U.S. consumers will ever see lower oil prices is for the federal government to nationalize oil drilling and gas production in this country. I venture to guess not one politician or political party has the spine to even suggest such a measure.

One more thing: Please stop blaming President Obama for high oil prices. How quickly we forget: Under George W. Bush's administration in 2008, gasoline prices soared to $4.11 per gallon.

Annemarie B. Kubicek

Las Vegas