Get aggressive breeds out of valley

To the editor:

When I arrived home from work on Friday, I learned of the infant who had been attacked and killed by the family's pit bulls. On one level, my heart truly goes out to this family, while on another level, I cannot believe that anyone would have a dog, or dogs, like this in a house with small children.

As the father of a 2-year-old boy who was attacked by a dog in June while on the way back to our house from the mailbox, I know what this family must be going through.

My question: How many times is this going to happen to an innocent child before something is done?

My wife and I spent three days in the pediatric intensive care unit at University Medical Center waiting for our son to recover from more than eight hours of surgery due to an unprovoked dog attack. It took three men to pry that dog off of my son, after he was slammed against the pavement several times and bitten numerous times on his face, head and neck. The hospital bills so far, before any type of plastic surgery to reduce the scars, is well over $80,000.

This attack not only happened in front of me -- I was actually holding my son's hand when the dog ripped him away from me -- but in front of my 7-year-old son. Our lives have been forever changed because of this tragic event, in the course of a five-minute period of time.

In a city where houses are 10 to 20 feet away from each other (or closer), it is, in my opinion, criminal that anyone is allowed to own a dog such as a pit bull, or in our case, a boxer.

Christopher Whitney


Inappropriate photo

To the editor:

I was appalled and disgusted with your front-page report Saturday morning on the pit bull attack that killed a 4-month-old baby.

I am very concerned that the Review-Journal found it appropriate to publish a picture on the front page of a plastic bag containing a dog that had been shot to death. It is a very upsetting and barbaric image that is not appropriate for Las Vegans and their children to see.

The story said that the animal control and emergency response personnel arriving at the scene were offered counseling because of the severity of the attack. Yet, the same front-page picture shows the animal control officer smiling while carrying the body of the dead dog. I can't imagine that there would be anything to smile about in a situation like that; a baby dead and two dogs dead.

The Review-Journal should be ashamed for showing such a disgusting and disturbing image. I think the Review-Journal should be a little more selective and sensitive when choosing the pictures that go along with the stories. The story could have been adequately told without showing the smiling man and dead dog.

Merissa Bulman


Rewarding dysfunction

To the editor:

In reading about the AIG bailout (Wednesday Review-Journal), I finally understood the difference between socialist governments and the U.S. government. Socialist governments nationalize profitable industries, whereas the U.S. government only nationalizes bankrupt ones.

Clifford Schindler


What's the catch?

To the editor:

The offshore oil drilling bill passed by Nancy Pelosi's House says rigs may not be not closer than 50 miles offshore. That's akin to the crab-fishing industry being restricted to the Columbia River.

What's the catch? No oil way out there, no crabs way in there.

Robert S. Tobias


No change

To the editor:

I keep hearing this election is all about change. Sen. Barack Obama has signs all over the place that say it, while Sen. John McCain is the "maverick" who is going to bring change. They keep saying it's what the people want, right?

I don't think so. We've had Democrats and Republicans as presidents before. War heroes have won the White House. There have been several Harvard grads in the Oval Office. Last I checked, two sitting senators have been elected president.

So what is this "change"? Is it lipstick on a pig? All I know is that if these two guys were really different, then their parties wouldn't have nominated them. If you want change, you won't get it voting for someone from one of the two parties that have been running things since the Whigs.

Platt Robertson


Jury of peers

To the editor:

So O.J. Simpson's defense is complaining that an all-white jury will decide his armed robbery and kidnapping case (Friday Review-Journal).

His deceased wife was white, all his girlfriends were white and he socializes mostly with whites. If he needs a strong black man around him, he picks a black attorney.

O.J. Simpson has a jury of his peers.

E. Jones