Standing up against invasive searches
To the editor:
Regarding the recent Associated Press story ("Security officials ... reassure outraged fliers") which reported that U.S. airline passengers will henceforth either be "patted down" or receive a high-definition body scan:
You reach a point when you sometimes have to say, "Enough!" I don't know if we're there yet when it comes to airport screening, but short of having us strip naked and undergo a cavity search, I think the TSA has taken this about as far as it can.
Given this new mandate, plus existing TSA dictums -- presentation of a government issued photo ID, taking off your shoes, emptying the contents of your pockets, plus removing your computer, not to mention the TSA's special treatment of carry-on fluids and gels -- we will face longer and longer security lines. It's a wonder anyone flies anymore.
The frustrating thing is that new security measures won't make us measurably safer than we were last year or in 2002.
Conclusions:
1. The concept of "marginal utility" states that one obtains only marginal benefits/aggregate cost, for each unit of additional effort -- or layer of screening. Eventually a point is reached where "costs" significantly outweigh added "benefits."
2. Since the sites/avenues and means of future terrorist attacks are poorly anticipated and potential casualties unquantifiable, it seems silly that Homeland Security continues to focus the vast majority of its resources on airport security, particularly domestic travelers.
3. Finally, each time the TSA or some other agency comes up with a new mandate that restricts Americans' ease of travel and/or constrains our liberty, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists win.
Jeffrey M. Shear
North Las Vegas
Tip shares
To the editor:
As a dealer, I've followed the union negotiations at Wynn Las Vegas with particular interest. Didn't the dealers vote for the union to try to prevent Steve Wynn from taking 15 percent of their tips? Why then would they sign a 10-year contract with 15 percent tip pooling as one of the agreements and consider this contract to be a victory?
Caesars Palace dealers were concerned with the tip sharing so they, too, voted for union representation. Certainly, Caesars can expect no better a contract than the one signed at Wynn. If this is considered at the larger casinos, it should make all dealers at every casino in town a little uneasy -- not many dealers can afford to lose 15 percent.
Of course, on the other hand, the floormen receiving the 15 percent are smiling all the way to the bank.
Kira Raymond
Las Vegas
Sales tax
To the editor:
Supporters for the arena petition initially stated that a tax revenue plan for the "Strip resort area" would be used to procure financing for the project. The language in the petition, however, states that a sales tax increase would extend to a three-mile radius around the proposed site.
This would include several shopping areas frequented by local citizens on a daily basis. This includes the Boulevard Mall, which is a large draw for local people.
So the claim that tourists would be footing the bill for the construction of the arena is very misleading. They would provide only a minor input when compared to the local residents who would contribute every day. This is a tax that will be a burden on those who could ill afford it.
If the supporters want a Strip resort tax, let it be a room tax on the Strip hotels and see how that goes with the hotel operators.
Paul Slaughter
Las Vegas
It's dreamy
To the editor:
Your Sunday editorial about Harry Reid and The Dream Act suggests that you have not actually read the bill. Your assertion that it would attract more illegal immigrants is ridiculous because the bill only covers children already in the country, not future immigrants.
This bill is a way to solve a piece of the immigration issue while simultaneously enriching our country. I support Sen. Reid and his willingness to think outside the box; to give children who have grown up in this country (through no intention of their own) the opportunity to do something to earn them legal status.
Amnesty is the willingness to forgive an infraction without imposing the normal consequence. This bill is not amnesty. If it were, serving in the military, risking life and limb, would be inconsequential. Perhaps you consider serving in the military or obtaining higher education a free ride. I don't.
MarLa Turner
Las Vegas
Good deal
To the editor:
In his recent letter, Tony Amodeo states that the people receiving Social Security and Medicare paid into them all of their working lives, which is a common argument. But it fails to mention the fact that they are receiving exponentially more than what they paid in.
So who is this really unfair to, the people who paid into it, or the people paying into it now?
John Walls
Henderson
