Efforts to defend doctor only add to problem

To the editor:

As if it were not already shocking and disappointing enough that Dr. Michael Kaplan would reuse needle guides (a clear, albeit implicit expression that the safety and health of his clients is worth less than the $10 that it costs per needle guide), his unwillingness as both a professional and a human being to accept responsibility for such a disastrous decision exacerbates the moral unaccountability that he seems to think is appropriate in these circumstances.

Making matters worse is Dr. Kaplan's attempt to place the responsibility on the vendor who sold him these needle guides -- rendering his response and unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his decision almost incredulous.

Adding insult to injury is Dominic Gentile's attempt to do the same. The Las Vegas community has come to know Mr. Gentile as a highly successful and extremely competent lawyer.

Clearly, one of the potential benefits that Dr. Kaplan has derived from his policy of frugality is his current ability to afford hiring Mr. Gentile as his legal counsel.

This effort at a defense for Dr. Kaplan adds a dimension of surrealism to an already inexcusable and unbelievable situation, making it more of an affront to the community of Las Vegas than it was previously. Could part of the legal strategy here be to mitigate the damage done by Dr. Kaplan to his profession by juxtaposing it with an equally ethically questionable and unsustainable legal defense, thus providing a comparable injury to the legal profession?

Certainly Mr. Gentile is more capable than that.

john george

Las Vegas

In the light

To the editor:

In his Tuesday letter, Richard J. Mundy's states that objections to compact fluorescent bulbs being forced on us by Washington (as discussed by Rich Lowry in his Monday commentary) show a problem with conservative thinking. In fact, the exact opposite is true: Mr. Mundy and other liberals just don't get it.

Mr. Lowry's main point isn't what he personally doesn't like about the new bulbs. The issue for him is that government is taking away choice in the matter. The issue is a loss of freedom.

It's always this way with the liberal mentality. If they believe doing something is "good," they want to use the force of government to coerce everyone else to fall into line. Charity is good, so use government to take my money and give it to someone else, etc., etc.

Mr. Lowry wasn't saying that Mr. Mundy shouldn't have the right to buy compact fluorescents, if he so desires, as well as to use his power of persuasion to convince others to do likewise.

But Mr. Mundy, and liberals in general, don't believe in persuasion. Only force.

Peter Horowitz

Las Vegas

Cut education

To the editor:

Yes, I am in favor of even more budget cuts. What do we get for our tax money? Kids get out of school, can't read, can't do math, don't know history and have no common sense. Instead, the things they are learning hurt our economy, such as:

-- They are learning it's better to send $100 per barrel for oil to people who want us all dead than drill for our own oil here.

-- They like the idea of grinding up food to make ethanol, at a cost that exceeds the sales price, while driving the price of food higher.

-- They hate coal, even though it's as clean as ever, and is the cheapest electricity we can buy.

-- They reward women (through taxpayers) for having babies without husbands.

-- They will demonize anyone who questions if a person is here illegally.

-- They force a business to prohibit smoking, even though some businesses thrive on smokers. Ask owners of small bars and slot routes.

These things are killing the American way of life.

Yes, I want a lot less of that kind of education.

RICHARD SANTA MARIA

LAS VEGAS

Hot air?

To the editor:

I read with interest an article on page 16A of the March 26 Review-Journal headlined, "Study finds wind speeds over oceans rose in past 25 years."

The article stated that wind speeds have increased over the world's oceans over the past 25 years, as have wave heights. The article went on to state that faster winds could cause more evaporation, causing more water vapor in the air, causing more rainfall, thus compounding any increase in global warming.

It was not until the end of the article that it gave the wind speed increase as a mere 0.25 percent per year.

Checking with the NASA Meteorology and Solar Energy Methodology data indicated the average wind speed near any significant land mass is 13.42 mph, or 6 meters per second (mps).

If you compounded the increase in wind speed over the 23-year study period, it would result in an average wind speed of 14.19 mph, or 6.34 mps, resulting in an increase of 0.77 mph or 0.34 mps. I would venture to guess that this small increase is very near the limits of our ability to accurately measure wind speed, and I doubt it would significantly increase evaporation, let alone have any effect on global warming.

To me, this is just another example of how we are misled with scare tactics by the environmental media regarding global warming.

They have used the same tactics regarding the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuels on global warming. What they neglect to tell everyone is that CO2 amounts to only 0.033 percent of our total atmosphere and has almost no effect on the Earth's temperature. Because all vegetation requires CO2 to survive, a little extra would probably be an advantage to all plant growth.

Doyle Mecham

Henderson