LETTERS

Last week's cover piece on violence in Las Vegas prompted several responses:

You left out a very important part of the report you printed on Violent Las Vegas. That is police abuse. Out-of-control cops who shoot first and forget anyone's rights.

The fact is that the cops are worst than the residents they keep killing. The constant daily killings by Henderson/Las Vegas cops for petty little things like shoplifting, or tasering people already in handcuffs to death, or excessive false traffic violations, all can take credit for Las Vegas' violent atmosphere. These domestic terrorist cops contribute to at least half of the problem, yet your article failed to report it or print any part of the facts.

Look at the facts on record. Cops can murder and be given time off with pay, then put back to duty. Where is the civilian justice in that? Cops have been out of control since we relocated over five years ago. (Sheriff) Bill Young is blind to the truth. This arrogant, stupid person fails to see how abusive the cops are.

Quite the interesting article, although not surprising, given the general lack of regard for the law here in the Valley. Whether it's the minor sruff like driving (just go the speed limit for one day and see everyone pass you by), litter (check out the Boca Park lot in mighty Summerlin); or the major stuff that your article details, it's quite obvious that a lot of "citizens" just don't give a (insert expletive).

Now, I hate to make a sweeping generalization, but if the shoe fits ... well, back in the 1990s, Cuba dumped many of its misfits on southern Florida. Perhaps in the last few years, California has dumped (or priced out) many of its misfits on us.

But even after such a depressing article, it was still nice to see my favorite goddess on Page 44.

My name is Betty, my stage name was Roxie. I'm an ex-dancer who worked in shows at the Dunes, Thunderbird and Desert Inn. Thanks for including dance articles now in your magazine. There are lots of old and current dancers in Vegas, and we appreciate the attention to what we do (or did). I also appreciate that I don't have to hide the publication when my grandchildren visit. Your photos are sexy but not raunchy. And your articles aren't full of four-letter words and sick sex letters. See and read you soon.

"By supporting civil unions for gay couples—which, practically speaking, is the cutting-edge issue in the battle for equality—President Bush has become a leading advocate for gay rights," insisted Bush administration official Abner Mason in the December 21 issue of The Advocate, the leading "gay rights" journal. President Bush's support "has made it a lot easier for others to recognize civil unions, especially political leaders in [socially conservative] red states. If gays accept Bush's support and find ways to work with him, the 2004 election will mark a turning point in America's acceptance of gay relationships."

Mason observes that Howard Dean not long ago "was hailed as a hero" by homosexual activists for his support of civil unions.

"Only eight days before the election, Bush publicly embraced the Dean position, which was also Kerry's position," Mason points out. "The previously controversial—and in Dean's case 'heroic'—position of supporting civil unions was now that of the conservative president."

So much for Bush's vaunted "family values" and his image of "conservatism."

I work at a local hotel-casino as a VIP services host and often use your magazine as a reference for my guests ... and sometimes even coworkers who are looking for something cool to do which may be off the beaten path. You guys have never disappointed. Thank you.

Here's a question for you: The articles are still entertaining, and the exposes intriguing ... but where's the eye candy from the cover? The fellas AND the ladies around here have been mentioning the change and have voiced their concerns. Is everything OK? I mean, if it's a religious thing or something, well OK ... but if you're trying to "not offend," then, well, that's kind of lame.