Officers must remain neutral while on job
To the editor:
Police officers must not display any signs of religious preference while on-the-job (“Jewish detective sues police,” Thursday Review-Journal). But Las Vegas Metro officer Steve Ribeck wants to wear a beard and yarmulke and is suing the department over the issue.
If he wins, someone else will want to wear a cross necklace, someone will want to wear a turban, and someone else will want to wear a burka.
I worked nearly 14 years as a deputy and sergeant for the Los Angeles County sheriff, mostly in the south-central and east Los Angeles areas. As a police officer I was in contact with many different types of religions and if I showed a preference I would be distrusted in the way I handled my duties.
The department policy should be that no items can be displayed while on duty other than approved symbols of office unless working undercover. No religious symbols, no political symbols, no private club symbols. Officers must remain neutral while performing their duties.
If officer Ribeck is not happy about the conditions under which he must work, I suggest he quit whining and do what a real man would do: find other employment. If I was an officer with Metro, I would work with officer Ribeck only under protest because I do not believe he sets the best image of the department as a whole.
Edward J. Cooper
LAUGHLIN
Sex crime
To the editor:
Sen. Larry Craig’s sexual orientation should not be the focus of our attention. Rather, we should be concerned with the fact that he solicited sex in a public facility … period.
Nor should the senator accuse the media and the Democrats of conducting a “witch hunt” since he chose to make his personal life public when he solicited sex in a public facility.
I suggest that we place our focus where it belongs — on public solicitation of sex, not on homosexuality.
Leslie Hoffman
LAS VEGAS
Road work
To the editor:
Juan Palma, manager of the local BLM office, tries to justify the illegal closure of public lands to … the public (Wednesday letter). No hearings and no chance for questions or challenges. Just some bureaucrat making an arbitrary decision to erase our rights.
While a goodly number of folks are worrying about the loss of their constitutionally guaranteed rights because of the Patriot Act, we all sit idly by as the government robs us of a real right: to go where we want to go without having to ask permission from some flunky.
These “public servants” need to be put back under control. Perhaps we need some serious acts of civil disobedience — say, like thousands of ATVs on Pipeline road some Saturday morning.
DAVE DOWNER
HENDERSON
For ‘the children?’
To the editor:
In reply to Christopher Roller’s letter of Aug. 30, I would like to point out that the “Nevada Clean Indoor Act” was a sloppily written piece of legislation, sold to the voters as a “save the children” law by fanatical nanny-state control freaks.
The law provided no means of enforcing the ban, counting upon private citizens who own or work in bars, restaurants, etc. to be the voluntary enforcers.
The law did not specifically require owners of taverns or bars to force patrons to stop smoking — it required them only to remove ash trays, matches, etc. and to post “no smoking” signs.
What the law did provide, however, was that owners of such establishments had to choose between serving food and allowing smoking, resulting in hundreds of jobs lost throughout the state as owners made the difficult choice to stop serving food.
And all this to “save the children” from smoke in many places where children were not permitted anyway. We are talking about bars and taverns which have slot machines and video poker.
Anyone with half a brain knows that children are not permitted in such places, but the nanny-state anti-smoking fanatics don’t seem to have that half a brain in their heads. Besides, it’s more fun for them to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
I am an adult, more than 60 years old. I choose where I wish to spend my dollars. I simply don’t eat in places where the guy at the next table is permitted to smoke. I patronize some other place. I don’t think it violates my rights if a place allows smoking — and I don’t violate the owner’s rights if I choose to spend my money elsewhere.
There are plenty of good places to get food and beverage service that are non-smoking establishments by choice.
David Adams
LAS VEGAS
Isn’t it ironic?
To the editor:
Isn’t it ironic that if you want to secure the border, you’re called a racist? That the American people have to accept the illegal aliens, as they supposedly do the jobs we won’t do?
Isn’t it ironic that after the largest tax increase in history, Nevada governments are broke? That schools, local governments, highways all need more money? I wonder what would happen if our nanny legislature met every year?
Isn’t it ironic that we need to go up north for water? That Nevada Power passes on all its bad investments to the public? That the Public Utilities Commission hasn’t declined a rate increase in years?
Isn’t it ironic that the housing crunch has slowed the Las Vegas Valley building boom? But not the increasing cost of living.
FORREST A. HENRY
LAS VEGAS
