Your Friday editorial on the Wells Fargo hearing missed the point that Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others were making.
The scam that the CEO and other high Wells Fargo officials were perpetuating was to pump up the number of accounts to convince the stock market analysts to give higher ratings to the bank’s stock, thereby boosting its stock price. That would increase the value of each executive’s holdings by millions of dollars.
That was in addition to the bonuses the executives made on the phony accounts that were created on their instructions.
Last week, the morning show on KNPR-FM 88.9 discussed the pros and cons of the proposed stadium.
Speaking against the stadium was a caller who articulated a strong case for more education funding, given that Nevada ranks at the bottom of the educational spectrum in the nation.
She was followed by a caller who expressed concern that Sheldon Adelson’s wealth and power, vis-a-vis ownership of the Review-Journal, ensured his ability to unduly influence political policymakers. She argued that the private sector should step up and pay for the stadium rather than expect the taxpayers to finance and assume the risk of a revenue bond.
Finally, Robert E. Lang, executive director of Brookings Mountain West, succinctly laid out an economically compelling case for the stadium and the funding mechanism.
All three raised strong and valid points.
Could we not, however, turn the stadium approval into a “win-win” for the state’s economy as well as our educational needs? This could be done by approving the proposed stadium-funding model and approving a state lottery, incorporating Powerball, with the proceeds being earmarked for education.
Under this scenario, Nevada will get its stadium and the many thousands of jobs generated by it, and the students of Nevada will get the enhanced education they deserve and the concomitant skills to take on the higher-paying jobs being created in the state by the likes of Tesla and Faraday.
I believe that it is wrong for the public defender to wear a Black Lives Matter button or any other advertising of a potentially controversial nature in court when representing a client. This has nothing to do with the pin’s message.
I believe that when representing a client in court, the attorney has a fundamental duty to promote and advocate for the client’s best interests. The right of free speech is not absolute. By refusing the judge’s request to remove the pin, the attorney creates a negative state of mind in the judge which can only hinder the interests of the client.
All this because of a matter that is completely irrelevant to the case being heard.