Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Things to consider

Friday, July 29, 2005 | 5:02 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

WEEKEND EDITION

July 30-31, 2005

Just when we get a break from the high summer temperatures, someone turns the heat up.

This is the time of year when, as a matter of tradition and for no other reason, this writer is required to remove himself from the comings and goings of Las Vegas life and, instead, treat Sun readers to the wisdom and experience of a number of local and state political, social and business leaders through the Where I Stand column.

In other words, just in case you haven't figured it out, I am taking some well-earned vacation time while some very generous people handle my column-writing chores. Their columns will start this coming week, which coincides with my own personal search for some more temperate climes in which to sit back and ponder the next 35 years of the Las Vegas Sun.

There is no question that the first 55 years of the Las Vegas Sun's existence have been the stuff from which great stories are told and incredible movies can be made. Who wouldn't be interested in hearing about the early days when the mob came to town and took care of business, so much so that every law enforcement agency in the country was trying to make its bones by breaking bones -- figuratively, of course -- of the "families" who came to call Las Vegas home? And who can pass up the opportunity to learn more about the days when Nevada's all-powerful racist in chief, Sen. Pat McCarran, ruled this state with an iron fist and directed the life and reputation-destroying tactics of the red-baiting senator from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy?

Without Hank Greenspun and his Las Vegas Sun, those two might have brought this entire country down around the ears of 150 million people before they ever figured out what they were allowing to happen in the name of fear. And what about the man who single-handedly saved Las Vegas at a time when it needed help -- Howard Hughes? His life and times in our city are legend, but it wouldn't and couldn't have happened without the Las Vegas Sun.

And in more current times, the inevitability of Yucca Mountain has been proved false as each day more and more comes out about the role of politics trumping science as the government tries to force the nation's deadliest nuclear waste down the throats of Nevadans.

And that is just the beginning. When the Sun returns to its rightful place as Las Vegas' locally owned morning newspaper in a couple of months, there will be plenty of issues that need to be addressed so that the people of this community and state can be as fully informed as possible in order to make the decisions we must -- at the ballot box and in our daily lives -- the best that we can make for our families and our futures.

So while I am escaping the heat of Las Vegas for a short while, I will be thinking about how to turn up the heat on those who take advantage and turn on the light of backroom deals that must be exposed so that Las Vegas can continue to be a city where everyone's dreams can come true. But before I go, there are just a few thoughts I'd like to leave you with to consider.

For example, I have already written that I believe Judge John Roberts will be confirmed as the next Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That seems to be the consensus of the people in the know, too. But that doesn't mean that the Senate should abandon its constitutional role, which requires it to give "advice and consent" to President George W. Bush's nominee.

It seems, as is always the case, with each pasing day and each turn of a new page of Roberts' past, there is more to learn about the man who could sit on the high court and be the swing vote away from the rule of law as we know it today for the next 30 years. In some cases that could be a good thing. In others, it might create a sense of havoc or despair among large groups of Americans -- overwhelming majorities at times -- so what or who this man is should be known before the Senate votes.

That brings up the current debate about whether the White House should release thousands of pages of memos and briefs that Roberts wrote while he was a lawyer for the Reagan and Bush White House and a member of the Solicitor General's legal team. The White House says "no way" because Roberts was acting as a lawyer on behalf of his client. The lawyer in me says they have a point. After all, the attorney-client privilege should be sacrosanct.

The citizen in me says something different, however. In this country, "we the people" are the government. The president and everyone else work for the taxpayers, so the advice given is really on our behalf and, therefore, we should decide whether or not we want to waive that privilege.

In the case of a Supreme Court nominee, whose decisions will affect generations of Americans, I think we should opt to know more, not less. And doesn't it sound a bit ludicrous when we are sending reporters to jail for not disclosing the names of confidential informants on stories that they didn't write -- involving matters of grave national security -- that the White House would try to make a case for witholding memos that a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court did write? None of which had anything to do with national security. Perhaps they affect political security, but since when has that been a matter of great importance to the commone weal?

Something else to think about is why, all of a sudden, the Bush administration decided to move more than 12 million tons of radioactive waste that has been sitting just a couple of hundred yards from the Colorado River in Utah. For years, environmentalists and the rest of us folks who live downriver and depend upon that water for sustaining life have been asking the government to move that deadly poison from the river's banks. To no avail.

I am not being critical. I am thrilled that Energy Secretary Sam Bodman made the decision to do the right thing and remove that risk from the dining tables of 25 million Americans. My only question is, why? I am sure someone has a good answer.

And, finally, some reason to be disturbed. The New York Times ran a story that quoted extensively from the Environmental Working Group, which is a non-profit environmental research and advocacy organization. The EWG released its findings of extensive research into the issue of chemical contamination of newborn babies in the United States.

The results are startling if things like known and suspected carcinogens that come with your newborns gives you reason for pause. One revelation is the danger that Teflon poses to our coming generations. Now, I am not being critical of Teflon. Heaven knows I don't like my eggs sticking to the pan anymore than the next guy, but there are some revelations exposed by the reserach that should cause every one of us to take another look at the risk-reward factors involved in living better through chemistry.

For those who are interested in learning more, go to the Environmental Working Group's Web site at ewg.org.

And, finally, enjoy the rest of your summer and know that everyone at the Las Vegas Sun is working hard to bring you the first daily newspaper of the 21st century. Can hardly wait to see it myself!

archive