The article about the Metropolitan Police Department paying a large settlement to a woman falsely accused of being a prostitute at the Cosmopolitan makes me aware of what a total scam these so-called prostitution sweeps are (“Woman falsely accused of prostitution wins settlement,” Wednesday Review-Journal). What a waste of resources to fight a victimless crime.
These sweeps aren’t cases of abusive child prostitution but of mature women. The customers seek them out, and it’s all consensual. Who is prostitution hurting? It’s like the Drug Enforcement Administration hassling marijuana smokers.
I’m sure the big casinos wouldn’t admit it, but they profit from having prostitutes there to attract customers. The whole issue of high-level prostitution is so hypocritical. Look at all the open advertising by escort services. The hooker-hunter officers could surely use their time for something more beneficial to society. Legislating morality is pointless and helps no one except the police, who make their living doing it.
I have seen some strange letters published in the Review-Journal (I’ve written a few of them myself). But Ross Tanenbaum’s letter really takes the cake (“Sanders and the ‘S’ word,” Oct. 24 Review-Journal). Socialism didn’t just become associated with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. After all, the country called itself the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” That country was a heck of a lot more than just a bogeyman. It was a brutal, totalitarian aggressor with nuclear weapons and expansionist tendencies.
And let’s not forget the Nazis, who were a variety of socialists and weren’t exactly good at “democratizing the workplace” (whatever that means), nor were they effective at “ending the wars.”
As for the banks, does Mr. Tanenbaum really believe that the federal government has not already taken effective control of the financial system? Who was responsible for the banking crisis of several years ago? In general, what is the government’s track record in instances when it has gained more influence over the lives of its citizens? I suggest it is not very good.
To paraphrase something I heard years ago: “Consider for a moment how many people in the 20th century lost their lives or property because government had too much control over their lives. Then consider for a moment how many people in the 20th century lost their lives or property because government had too little control over their lives.”
North Las Vegas
We have hundreds, maybe thousands of homeless people in Southern Nevada. We have veterans dying before they can get treatment, and a Veterans Affairs hospital that requires more funds to complete a multiyear, past-due project — at a facility that already cost far more than the original estimate.
We get higher taxes to fund a school district that we are trying to split up, because the current district doesn’t work. We have a teacher shortage in our existing schools, but we want to build more schools. Fuel taxes need to be increased to repair current roads and build additional ones, and to repair other existing infrastructure. We spend millions of dollars to build a new palace for our judges and the justice system (“New courthouse a sign of justice, democracy,” Monday Review-Journal).
It would appear that some people have their priorities totally confused. Who will represent the real people of Nevada?
Michael R. Stilley
As always, the Review-Journal is quick to criticize people who care about the welfare of animals, as mentioned in the editorial on the Roos-N-More zoo (“Animal backers,” Oct. 23 Review-Journal). I would think someone at the newspaper would meet with animal welfare activists in our community and try to understand what they stand for, to get a better understanding of who they are.
For those with no understanding of the animal issues that face our community, it is easy to mock the activists. You might be surprised to find out that some of your assumptions are wrong, and you may even agree with animal welfare activists after hearing the facts. Isn’t a newspaper supposed to be fair and balanced, so that readers can form their own opinions?