Letters for March 10, 2016

Sushi rules

Re: “What’s Reno’s Food?” (Feature story, Feb. 25):

It seems a bit unfair to label all AYCE sushi patrons as disgruntled, post-casino-buffet gluttons. After all, sushi, especially with a reasonable fish-to-rice ratio, is not exactly filling. The chances of achieving the same desired fullness at regular establishments before emptying the wallet or purse is a remote possibility at best. By the way, my favorite local AYCE, which shall remain nameless, is all about warm, friendly service, off-menu specials, and dazzling homemade creations that you won’t find anywhere else. (Yes, that’s you, Godzilla and Aureliano!) Oops!

Rob Shader


Key to the letters page

It seems like more and more law enforcement agencies are lining up to have phones unlocked. It all started with one request from the FBI for one phone to be unlocked, and when will it end? A New York judge denied New York police from getting Apple to unlock the phone of a suspected drug dealer. If the government wins, and Apple has to unlock the phone, ground rules should be setup before the first phone is unlocked.

1. The phone must be unlocked at an Apple lab. The key must not be allowed to leave the premises, and no one except Apple employees are allowed to touch the equipment. This way the key will not end up in the hands of hackers, and if it does, no one else can be blamed except Apple. 2. A court order must accompany the phone detailing what information the law enforcement agency is trying to obtain. Any other information found on the phone can’t be used against the phone owner—Fifth Amendment against self incrimination, privacy rights. 3. An attorney representing the phone owner must be present to ensure the letter and spirit of the court order has been complied with and no one has a copy of information not allowed by the court order. 4. No fishing. Proof of ownership must be established.

More should be done to ensure the privacy rights of citizens than to give the government open access to your computer (and your phone is a computer) and any other private information just because some agent suspects your computer may or may not have something of interest.

Dewey Quong


Trainor wheels

Re “The market and solar” (Let Freedom Ring, Feb. 25):

Brendan Trainor’s article rails on solar subsidies yet completely ignores the fact that fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by our government, and that doesn’t include the hidden costs of environmental damage which have been legislated out of these industries. Journalistic integrity would tell a different story than portrayed in this article.

Marcial Reiley


Re “The market and solar” (Let Freedom Ring, Feb. 25):

I’m replying to Brendan Trainor’s “The Market and Solar” to clear up the Libertarian Party of Nevada’s position. We agree that “libertarians should support a mandate and subsidy-free energy market, and should advocate the end of the progressive model of regulated monopolies like NV Energy, so consumers have real choices in who provides their energy needs.” Unfortunately, the PUC’s actions have further entrenched NV Energy’s monopoly on power generation and distribution by setting an artificially low “wholesale price,” along with a hefty monthly access fee. Assuming the PUC’s decision stands, NV Energy will effectively purchase surplus residentially-generated power for very close to free. Though net metering at retail rates does not reflect the cost to distribute power from residential sources to other customers, that framework comes closer to ending NV Energy’s monopoly by providing consumers a real choice in who provides their energy. We would prefer complete deregulation of Nevada’s power; until that happens, we must ensure the cronies that leverage regulatory capture to profit off of Nevadans don’t make a bad situation worse. To that end, we support all efforts that accommodate the decentralization and deregulation of power generation.

David Colborne

Libertarian Party of Nevada


Cauci dissed

The historical purpose of a caucus is to gather folks together to discuss, argue, campaign for a particular candidate. Then, based on what folks hear and learn, folks can then make a more-informed vote.

That does not seem to be the case for the modern caucus. I attended the Democratic caucus in Virginia City and was hoping to actively participate in some kind of discussion, but it never happened. Instead, we listened to someone read letters from elected officials that were just pep talks encouraging us to vote for a Democrat. (Preaching to the choir?) The reason for a caucus cannot be for the people since caucusing creates time hardships that keep people from attending, and state law does not obligate employers to facilitate attending a caucus, which inhibits participation.

The only given reason is “First in the West” status (with a caucus, the party decides the date). But what does this buy us? Well, the candidates tend to show up in our state, but they all just repeated the same talking points from previous stump speeches with a few token panderings added for selected local issues. Is that worth disenfranchising so many voters? I think not. The Democratic party claims to be against voter suppression, yet it’s the Democratic party that insists on a caucus system. You can’t have it both ways.

Michel Rottman

Virginia Highlands