What are the details of PUC appointments?

In response to the June 21 article, ” General counsel for PUC removed,” by Sean Whaley and his June 22 follow-up, “Former PUC general counsel denies allegations over departure”:

Since Jan. 1, I have read, photocopied and distributed a total of 61 Review-Journal newspaper articles, 71 letters to the editor, seven guest columns and four editorials having to do with the solar energy situation in Nevada. While the numerous articles are both educational and informative, I have not seen a single article (or reference) as to whether Public Utility Commission members and staff were ever “backgrounded.”

Either vetting occurred and rogue staff members were appointed, or no vetting occurred and no one knew of their solar philosophies or pre-dispositions prior to their appointments.

If members of Gov. Brian Sandoval’s own staff were responsible for this requirement, they should be released or transferred. If he, himself, knew of the “vetting” and still permitted the anti-solar personnel to become part of the PUC, questions now arise as to his decision-making.

The governor did, however, initiate his Energy Task Force to somewhat counter the PUC’s errant solar decisions.

I also wonder what part monetary contributions played in the PUC appointments. Especially from NV Energy.

Russ L. Russell

Las Vegas

Speech restrictions

In a June 22 editorial, the Review-Journal points to the Justice Department attempting to criminalize the “free speech” of major corporations on global warming denials. This sounds terrible until you clarify just what is at stake.

The tobacco companies had every right to tout cigarettes, until it was proven that they did so, knowing — not believing, but knowing — that their product was a danger.

Please note further, that pharmaceutical companies go to great pains to advertise not only the perceived benefits of their medications, but also every known side effect. They do this to make sure they do not fall into the same trap as the cigarette companies.

ExxonMobil produces and sells oil products. If company officials in fact know that there are harmful side effects that occur with the use of these products, yet they withhold this information from the public, where is the difference?

Yes, there can be legal restrictions placed on “free speech” if such speech poses a harm to others. Yelling “fire” in the movie theater when one knows there is no fire is a valid example.

Richard L. Strickland

North Las Vegas

Second City woes

Your recent wire service article, “For Chicago, summer ‘could be a bloodbath’ ” should have been on the front page. This is exactly what is wrong with the Obama administration. Here we have a president of the United States who comes from Chicago — the man with hope, the man with change — and his town is in a shambles.

In Chicago, 400,000 young people in 230 square miles have a three-month vacation. The article states the neighborhoods become an especially target-rich environment for those with scores to settle, drug territories to protect or frustrations to vent.

I can see why the young people in the inner city give up, the country has given up on them. Obama should be ashamed to say he is from Chicago.

Dave Mesker

Las Vegas