To the editor:
Paul Harasim’s Sunday article, “Dr. Desai’s rise and fall,” was notable only for its sensationalism and insensitivity to the vibrant Indian-American community that is often praised for its intellectual achievements in this country.
I have no personal knowledge of the allegations against Dr. Dipak Desai and do not make any claims about his guilt or innocence. However, the report has done tremendous injustice to a community that has been a model minority in America, excelling in several fields including medicine, business and academics. Every American has seen the superlative professors, the great physicians, the successful businessmen and various other professionals of Indian descent who are admired by their peers. You have to have lived in a cave not to appreciate the intellectual capabilities of the Indian-American students in the U.S. educational system.
The article describes a highly exaggerated, distorted and demeaning picture of India from a distant past that has absolutely no relevance to today’s realities. It is so cartoonish and sensationalistic that it puts the National Enquirer to shame. It describes natural human activities that are never discussed in polite company, and that have nothing to do with the subject of the article.
It never says that Dr. Desai was ever a part of the abominable conditions described. How is whether or not Dr. Desai paid a low rent for the motel he stayed at when he came to Las Vegas of any relevance?
The article and its corresponding response in the blogosphere exhibit a degree of xenophobia, bigotry and racism that I had never experienced in Las Vegas until now.
Mr. Harasim has shown us how far a reporter can sink in his zeal to create a story. Should we go to his hometown to see what made him write such a disgusting article?
CYRIAC CHEMPLAVIL, M.D.
To the editor:
While I usually agree with Review-Journal columnist Vin Suprynowicz, I have a somewhat different interpretation of the latest ruling of the Nazgul Nine (“Inching back up the path toward freedom,” June 29).
On the surface, the 5-4 decision on District of Columbia v. Heller would appear to be a victory for Second Amendment proponents. However, I think the justices have just put the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.
While confirming that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, justices also stated that the states have the right to place restrictions on that right. How, then, is it a right? You either have a right or you don’t. If it is subject to restrictions, then it is a privilege, not a right.
In “winning” this case, we have lost — big time. This case now sets a precedent that all of our rights may be limited. I realize that they already are, this just makes it official.
To the editor:
I’ve long grown weary of Corey Levitan’s Monday “Fear and Loafing” column. But up until now, his descriptions of failing at job after job seemed a rather harmless diversion. After this week’s column on working as a madam, however, I was so disgusted I’m tempted to cancel my subscription to the Review-Journal.
Mr. Levitan made working in a brothel sound like a fun, amusing lark. Prostitution is no laughing matter. As a Catholic, I find the practice immoral. But more importantly, it is a source of shame and misery for millions of women and children around the world who are forced into sexual slavery every day.
Trivializing this serious matter sends the wrong message to our children and teenagers, many of whom do read the Living section of the Review-Journal. It also shows a lack of respect for the hard-working members of our law enforcement agencies and task forces, who have given generously of their own time to help these abused women and children.
Mr. Levitan owes your readers an apology.
Keep crooks in jail
To the editor:
Why do we need to raise the sales tax again to hire more cops to arrest the same criminals more times (John L. Smith column, July 4 Review-Journal)? It’s very telling to Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie’s true motivation that he specifically warns politicans about diverting funds to jails.
The Review-Journal should conduct it’s own poll: Would you rather 600 new cops be put on the streets to arrest criminals who, due to jail overcrowding, are back on the street sooner committing more crime, requiring more cops and more tax increases, or expand our jails, hire more correction officers and lock the criminals up so they are off the street and not committing additional crimes to start with?
The Gillespie tax would have little to no effect on crime. Locking up criminals, a small number of whom commit a disproportionate amount of all crime, would immediately and drastically reduce crime.