Promote conservation, not more gasoline use

To the editor:

Your Tuesday editorial started by exposing the very high tax component built into the price per gallon of gasoline (in Nevada, it’s 51.9 cents). And it ended by questioning upcoming Senate debate on a bill that increases federal tax subsidies for renewable fuels. Yes, we should be very concerned about both issues.

Of greater concern, however, was your position that "we know how to really reduce gasoline prices: Increase supply." Increasing supply and reducing prices results in more usage. The more we use of this finite resource, the faster we run out.

I would encourage you to adopt an editorial perspective that promotes conservation, more efficient utilization, technological advancements in alternative development, and an understanding of how and why we need to embrace self-restraint (such as in the choice of cars we manufacture and/or buy). We must develop government policies (domestic and global) to protect us and future generations.

Ken Kuhner

HENDERSON

Misleading arguments

To the editor:

Thomas Sowell’s anti-immigration commentary (May 25) contained many misleading statements. Allow me to address three.

First, he makes the claim that because immigrants constitute only 24 percent of workers in the agricultural sector, native-born Americans are clearly willing to do theses jobs. But the agricultural sector of the economy includes a wide range of occupations — farmers, ranchers, etc. Seasonal day laborers are just one of the occupations within the industry, an occupation overwhelmingly composed of immigrants. We shouldn’t confuse these workers with, say, dairy farmers just because they are in the same industry, any more than we should equate stock brokers or financial analysts with a data entry worker because they all work in the securities industry. As an economist, Mr. Sowell should know better.

Second, he argues that these workers make no contribution to the economy because they help produce a surplus of agricultural products that the government purchases. True enough, although we can hardly blame these workers for a policy embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike. Farm subsidies are designed to support farmers who otherwise might go out of business. We can argue the wisdom of such industrial welfare, but one thing is certain — immigrants did not create the policy.

Third, Mr. Sowell makes the suspect claim that previous generations of immigrants became Americans and wanted to assimilate. This, too, is at odds with the historical record. Many Chinese immigrants who worked on the railroads, for example, did so to send money to family members in their home country with the intent of returning. Beyond this, first-generation immigrants then, as now, often settled in ethnic enclaves (Chinatown, Little Italy, etc.) where they had little need to speak English or otherwise assimilate. Nativists at that time, as now, decried the situation. Then, as now, it was the second-generation immigrants who assimilated.

We can have a reasoned debate about the merits of the immigration reform proposals. False, misleading, and perhaps intellectually fraudulent claims such as those offered by Mr. Sowell may fan nativist passions, but they don’t help rational debate. One thing is certain: Our country has prospered, because or in spite of, waves of Irish, Chinese, German, Polish, Greek and other immigrants. We shall certainly continue to prosper in the midst Mexican immigration, whether we like it or not.

Shan Nelson-Rowe

HENDERSON

No smoking

To the editor:

In his May 5 letter, R.M. Lottermoser stated, "Restaurants and the like are private places. … They should be free to set whatever rules they choose within them."

Yes, they are privately owned, but they are public places in so far as the public uses them, and without this factor, they would not be in business. They must adhere to the law whether or not they agree with it.

If a restaurant is found to be infested with vermin or roaches, the health law requires that they come into compliance with health ordinances or face closure. If any establishment is operating in an unsafe condition, OSHA will require it to correct the situation or face closure, regardless of whether the establishment is privately owned.

If a rancher’s herd is found to be infected with any dangerous disease that could be spread to humans, he is forced to destroy the herd.

All of the instances concern "private" owners who must be made to comply with the law whenever they are found to be dangerous to the health or welfare of individuals. Nevada’s new law banning smoking at establishments that serve food is no different.

GLEN J. GILLETTE

LAS VEGAS

No Republican

To the editor:

This is a RINO alert. For those of you unfamiliar with the term RINO, it stands for "Republican In Name Only." It appears Nevada has one in Republican Rep. Jon Porter.

A few weeks ago, Rep. Porter voted, along with liberal Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, to allow the District of Columbia to have federal representation, which would surely result in a more liberal Congress.

Then, Rep. Porter voted to expand federal hate crimes categories, which single out certain groups of citizens for special protection. Rep. Berkley also voted for it, while President Bush signaled he would veto the legislation. And even while Rep. Porter was busy voting for liberal causes, he found time to tell Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a fellow Republican, to step down. Meanwhile, he kept very quiet about Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate’s majority leader.

With the Review-Journal reporting on the activities of our representatives, big RINOs such as Jon Porter will not be able to hide behind their liberal voting records.

ROBERT KNIGHT

LAS VEGAS

Support nukes

To the editor:

A recent poll of Nevada voters conducted by Public Opinion Strategies shows that voters in the state are extremely concerned about global warming and believe it’s essential that policymakers at the state and federal level take action to address the issue. According to the poll, 68 percent of voters agree we need to take action in order to protect our children and grandchildren.

Recently "60 Minutes" aired an excellent segment on the growing international consensus that increased reliance on nuclear power is key to solving the global warming problem. Even the founder of Greenpeace now supports nuclear energy.

Nuclear power is the world’s largest source of emission-free energy. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. The use of nuclear energy in place of other energy sources helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth’s climate, avoid ground level ozone formation and prevent acid rain.

Nevada should increase its reliance on solar and geothermal, but these sources alone will never meet the state’s growing power needs. A single nuclear plant could meet the energy needs of almost 1 million people. A repository at Yucca Mountain is not only environmentally responsible, but it is also a way to diversify our economy. Eventually we will create thousands of new high-tech jobs turning the material into billions and billions of dollars worth of electricity. This is a challenge that needs to be solved so future generations don’t have to deal with it.

SHARON SEVIGNY

LAS VEGAS