Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: A deli’s worth of baloney

Tuesday, Nov. 16, 1999 | 9:46 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

REACHING AN AGE of understanding.

Isn't it interesting how some things in life are so easy to understand that it takes only a second to make the point. Other matters could take days of reiteration before the light goes on inside our brains, if ever. I proved the point to myself once again, reading the Sun last night.

The first thing I noticed, of course, was Randy Morton's kisser grinning from ear to ear from the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel. The American Automobile Association had just made official its announcement that the Four Seasons in Las Vegas' Mandalay Bay hotel-casino had been awarded its five diamond rating, the highest ranking for luxury hotels. With much of the competition for the top prize coming from Las Vegas' other spectacular hotels, it was quite a plum for Randy and his crew to win that award.

In fact, being acknowledged by AAA as a five diamond winner in less than one year is virtually unheard of and ever more the reason why Four Seasons founder and President Isadore Sharp hosted a luncheon today for locals and other dignitaries to show off the people who made it all happen. Randy Morton will be the first to tell you that it is the people who make good even better. That's why it is not difficult to believe that next year Las Vegas may boast another hotel or two in the coveted ranks of the five diamond winners. That's because we have some of the very best hotel and service employees anywhere in the world and some of the most imaginative thinkers providing the ultimate in places to work.

Las Vegans, I know, are proud of what the Four Seasons has been able to accomplish. And it is easy to understand why this is just one more first for the Entertainment and Destination Capital of the World.

As easy as it is to understand how hard work and dedication can pay off in AAA recognition, it is that much more difficult to comprehend the inner workings of our federal government's budgeting process. As often as we have been told that it is akin to sausage making -- every Congress to be exact -- can anyone really explain what abortions in places like East Africa and Asia have to do with Congress' constitutional responsibility to pass a federal budget?

I know all about politics and the toll it takes, especially during an upcoming presidential election cycle, but why must we constantly be threatened with government shutdowns -- complete with loss of vital services so close to the Christmas holidays -- just because some ideologues in Congress don't like the fact that grossly overpopulated countries on this planet have asked for help in matters of family planning.

In fact, and this better be easy for everyone to understand, unless we help these overpopulating countries find the ways and means to curb their burgeoning birth rates, we will all be victims of a massive diminishing in our quality of life and in this planet's ability to sustain itself in the face of a massively overburdened life-support system.

In short, the entire federal budget effort came close to being derailed over the issue of abortion. Not only was our own ability to fund the needed services of government threatened, but so, too, was the United States' unquestioned leadership in the global community. By standing firm on the family planning issue, some in Congress were more than willing to jeopardize our standing in the United Nations. Now, I remember well the decades-long -- and continuing -- chant by the head-in-the-sanders among us to get out of the United Nations. Not that there was reason to pay attention to them before, but today there is far less reason to listen and every reason to do all that we can to make sure the world of the 21st century includes all of the leadership possible from the United States of America. All of that was threatened by the withholding of overdue U.N. dues, which was being held hostage to the abortion issue.

If there is a good reason why all that happened, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'll just assume it is just so much more pandering to the ugly politics of divisiveness with an added twist. No longer is it only about domestic politics. Now it is America's dominant role in the coming world that is up for grabs, with our future being dictated not by our strength of purpose and leadership but by our position on abortion!

And just when you thought you had an understanding of the weightier issues of the day, along come Sandy Murphy and her lawyer to make a muddle of it all over again.

It took Judge Joe Bonaventure -- and, I hope his tongue was pressed firmly in his cheek when he did so -- to praise defense attorney John Momot's efforts to secure his client's missing black panties from the clutches of the prosecutor. Far be it for me to second-guess a lawyer's need to defend his client but, this time, it just seems like we have gone a bit overboard.

Bonaventure's ruling that the prosecutor must inform the court before any evidentiary testing can be conducted on the missing undies is logical and full of common sense. What defies understanding is the need for anyone to be wasting precious court time in dealing with the subject. First, Murphy, who is accused in the murder of Ted Binion, should be more careful with her underpants when she goes to jail. Second, the district attorney should take such matters more seriously when asked about his intentions.

All of this could have been avoided. Instead, some comic relief, where none was needed nor appropriate, has been provided in the middle of a very serious criminal matter. A man is dead and two people are accused of doing him in. And what are the courts and the lawyers doing in the midst of all this? Chasing down a pair of black panties. Who understands all of that?

And finally, there's Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. By all accounts he is one of the smartest and most creative men of our time. He's certainly the wealthiest. And yet, both he and other company officials continue to take the position that the antitrust laws of the United States, while important and necessary, have little or no application to Microsoft.

The judge in that case has made his findings of fact and, if his ruling on the law follows suit, there could be some rough sledding ahead for the software giant. The case, the country, the stock markets and the innovation that will certainly come in the computer industry cry out for some kind of settlement of this mess.

So what do we hear from Gates? Basically that he has done nothing wrong because the laws apply to everyone else except those in his industry. That's baloney. If antitrust protections apply anywhere they must do so in the one area of the new economy that demands innovation, creativity and access to the market. That's the one Microsoft controls. Why is that so hard to understand?