Strippers don’t need attorney’s help

To the editor:

I read Sunday's letter from Michael Rusing, the attorney who filed the class-action lawsuit for the strippers, and thought this must be a comedy routine. Who is he kidding?

The dancers are way better off as independent contractors. First, there's taxes. It's easier and more economical to claim tax deductions on a Schedule C than as an employee. Second, as independent contractors, they can have any type of retirement program they want. As an employee, they're restricted to whatever the employer offers, if anything. Third, as independents, they can choose when they want to work. There must be an advantage to this, or why would so many women come here on specific weekends only?

Mr. Rusing says some women don't earn enough to even pay their fee to dance. He expects people to believe someone would continue working if it cost her money? (Unless they're an intern.)

And finally, the money he said the women would get from the lawsuit, is that before or after Mr. Rusing takes his cut? Probably 40 percent plus expenses, like most contingency fees.

Tell me again, who is Mr. Rusing doing this for?

PHILIP COHEN

LAS VEGAS

Poor argument

To the editor:

I read with great interest Vin Suprynowicz's most recent diatribe against the public school system (Sunday column). First, let it be said I too feel George Washington was the greatest president this country ever had. Most notable were his leadership and negotiating skills.

That being said, there were many omissions, material mistruths and in some cases out right fabrications in Mr. Suprynowicz's column.

Number one, George Washington was born into a prosperous agrarian family in Virginia. As was customary within the landed gentry, he was educated at home by his brothers and father. So it is no surprise that when he attended school he had a jump start. Sort of a private Head Start program.

It was not true that when his brother died Washington had to "do it on his own." In fact, when his brother died Washington inherited his part of the family estate. When Washington married Martha he received a dowry as a foundation for his Mount Vernon estate. He also received land for his military service in the French and Indian War.

A brave and inspirational warrior Washington won only three of nine battles he was involved in during the American Revolution. He resigned his commission during the French and Indian War due to the fiasco of the Monongahela expedition.

Let us not forget that George Washington did not do the work at Mount Vernon by himself. He had at least 100 employees also known as slaves. I bring this up not as a condemnation. This was common business practice of the time. I bring it up as a point. George Washington didn't do it by himself.

In my opinion, Mr. Suprynowicz correctly identified the two characteristics that make George Washington our greatest president. He refused to be promoted to the level of a king. And he preached all of his career as a politician and leader to avoid foreign entanglements.

In closing, we get it, Mr. Suprynowicz. You hate public education. But if you are going to browbeat the educational system and educators in general -- of which I am one -- get your facts straight. Even a third grader from a public school could have picked your argument apart.

Paul Ruth

HENDERSON

Show reviews

To the editor:

Mike Weatherford's "Fantasy" review in Neon last Friday was unique in tone. He did the critique just as he would do any other entertainment. He was not concerned about appearing too accepting of the show content, and treated the whole thing without patronizing or semi-embarrassed comments. He reviewed it like he had been there before. A pro doing his job.

His Sunday column on Rich Little was unique also. He made the great unwashed aware of an ongoing hitch in the entertainment reviewer's work -- reviewed performers with noses out of joint. He explained it well -- he works for his readers, which is separate from any relationship he might have with the entertainers.

But entertainers will never fully buy into that separation, and critics must work around that. A print or electronic medium critic can affect an entertainer's income for good or bad. So they will always have at best a love/hate relationship with critics. The answer, if critics want to maintain entertainers as interview sources, is to throw them a bone in a negative review. A bone with which the critic can live.

Entertainers entertain first for audience approval, then for money, then because it is in their blood. Approval is first no matter what they say. The entertainer is at the mercy of a fickle public, and many talented performers never make it because of people willing to pay to see something other than talent. So the reviewer can't lie to the readers, but should have some empathy for the poor bastard up there doing his number in one. They should do what they have to do, but leave a rose in the dressing room.

Mike is one of only a couple dozen entertainment reviewers in the country with the writing skills to do that and not make it obvious. I know of what I speak.

Don Merz

LAS VEGAS