LETTERS: Federal takeover of police a bad idea
To the editor:
The indictment of six officers from the Baltimore Police Department for Freddie Gray’s death was a completely political action (“Six Baltimore officers indicted,” May 22 Review-Journal). When these officers are acquitted or found guilty of greatly reduced criminal charges, it will be a new excuse for the mobs in the streets to riot.
Meanwhile, Baltimore police are already backing away from encounters with the lawless. The game here is to use the rising crime rates — which will occur from the street mobs and the inability of the police to do their jobs — as an excuse for federal control of our local police forces. Federally controlled police will be unresponsive to local government, allowing the fed forces unchecked brutality.
I think we need to support our local police and keep them independent.
FRANK M. PELTESON
LAS VEGAS
Sebelius on Sandoval
To the editor:
I read Steve Sebelius’ column on Gov. Brian Sandoval’s tax plan (“Revenue tax common thread in governor’s plan,” May 22 Review-Journal). It amazes me how blatantly Mr. Sebelius continues to side with Gov. Sandoval — as well as any other RINO (Republican in name only) — on any subject, regardless of the consequences for the voter or the state. I am amazed Mr. Sebelius can see to write his column, when he is so blinded by Gov. Sandoval.
AJ MAIMBOURG
LAS VEGAS
Clinton’s emails
To the editor:
Reuters reported that nothing in the first release of private-server emails by Hillary Clinton’s campaign indicates any malfeasance or nonfeasance from the then-secretary of state (“Judge: Clinton’s email to be released in batches,” May 20 Review-Journal). Well, duh. One would hardly go to Richard Nixon’s memoir looking for clues to Watergate, or to John F. Kennedy’s to search for references to Judith Exner, Sam Giancana, Marilyn Monroe or the 1960 West Virginia primary.
Here’s a hint to the former watchdogs of the press: Hillary Clinton’s emails were scrubbed squeaky clean before you saw hard copies. Indeed, there are hundreds of pages of theoretical “family” messages that were supposed to have been deleted as personal — but which serve to advance the campaign narrative. Either ask for the server (trust me, once written, nothing can be totally scrubbed) or shut up.
BOB ASHMAN
LAS VEGAS
Train safety legislation
To the editor:
As a railroad worker in Nevada, I would like to bring to your attention a bill in the House of Representatives, the Safe Freight Act, introduced by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska. This important legislation would require that freight trains are operated by at least two individuals: a certified conductor and a certified engineer. While almost all freight trains are currently operated by two-person crews, some rogue operators have begun operating with a single crew member.
In July 2013, an unattended freight train carrying 72 tank cars of crude oil derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and destroying much of the town. The train rolled away from its parked position because the single crew member could not properly secure it alone.
The safety benefits of having two crew members on board are not limited to parking a train. Engineers and conductors are each responsible for a long list of unique duties, most of which must be carried out simultaneously. Consolidating these responsibilities to one individual would only exacerbate the most critical safety issue facing the rail industry today — high levels of fatigue among operating employees — and result in additional train accidents. Two-person crews not only help prevent potential accidents or derailments, but also play a critical role in mitigating emergency situations when they do occur.
Positive train control, while an important safety technology, cannot replace the vital role of a second crew member. No one would approve of a commercial airliner being operated by one pilot, even though a plane can fly itself; freight trains, which cannot drive themselves, should be treated no differently.
JASON DOERING
LAS VEGAS
Military gear for police
To the editor:
President Barack Obama’s executive order restricting military gear sales to local police is seriously flawed. The unrest that has become so prominent in cities lately should be controlled by a major police force with all the gear it can get.
I think the president made a ridiculous statement in saying, “We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like they’re an occupying force, as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them.”
If the police, the National Guard and other vessels of protection can’t protect the public using all the gear available, then the police shouldn’t get involved in the first place. Let the rioters police themselves.
LINDA J. PARKER
LAS VEGAS
