The latest reality TV show from Beverly Hills; still arguing over the bullet train in California; and a healthcare law foe files for bankruptcy, with unpaid medical bills

That’s entertainment

Re “Beverly Hills reality of ‘Shahs’ is worlds away from Iran,” March 8

While negative associations should rightfully concern well-behaved Persian Americans, those whose value system is defined by disliking ants and ugly people — perhaps we should be glad the young woman’s list is this short — are deplorable, irrespective of their ethnic or cultural background.

Congratulations to the producers of”Shahs of Sunset”for further expansion of a successful formula by giving an audience what it claims not to want and will likely watch anyway. We can only expect the same debased behavior and huge ratings that “Jersey Shore” gets for its network — along with “Tehrangeles” soon becoming part of the popular lexicon.

Phillip Hain

Glendale

I would like to counter this impression of Beverly Hills High School with one of the hundreds and hundreds of hardworking students.

I taught there for many years. Among those who were not caught up in materialism, I recall several who devoted much of their junior and senior years to raising funds for and awareness of the tragedy in Darfur.

The curriculum was demanding and the sports program outstanding. Inquiry, study and sportsmanship were emphasized.

I think that materialism comes from the home rather than the school.

Lynne Shapiro

Marina del Rey

Golnesa Gharachedaghi says she doesn’t like ugly people.

Only an ugly-on-the-inside person would make such a statement.

Keith Schoose

Long Beach

Divided by a bullet train

Re “A collision of visions,” March 8

Boy, the opponents to the bullet train have it right.

I would not like to live like a European and take a comfortable, fast train to work each day.

Much better to get up well before dawn and buck the traffic on our well-maintained highways.

Allen F. Dziuk

Carlsbad

We all, to an enormous extent, have to live within our means.

I find it hard to justify why the government, which should be setting an example, isn’t obligated to do the same.

Why the focus on a bullet train?

There are a million and one things with the potential to benefit Californians, but without proper funding, it’s simply reckless and irresponsible to undertake them.

Many in the greater Los Angeles area would prefer a train that would take them to work, not to San Francisco.

If the goal is to enact an effective way to improve transportation and lower greenhouse gas emissions, let’s put the money into commuter rail.

If the government can get the debt under control and show us that it’s capable of effective money management, then I’m on board — pun intended.

Daniel A. Cowell

Monrovia

For whom will a bullet train traversing California be built?

Of course for the lobbyists in Sacramento and their commercial clients. Those few will benefit and reap millions.

And who is going to use the train? Think.

This boondoggle will never be profitable; instead, it will be built at a multibillion-dollar cost to California taxpayers.

Why not build efficient rapid transit systems in our congested cities? In many places we do have the right-of-way to build such systems.

In time, millions of commuters would be getting out of their cars, taking public transit, saving gasoline and time, reading the paper and arriving relaxed at their places of work and at their homes in the evening.

Peter Weisbrod

Laguna Beach

I’m getting angry.

Angry because every day I read about how we are all being pushed into things we don’t want.

Today it’s the bullet train. Before that it was huge solar farms, electric cars or government healthcare.

What do they all have in common? All are expensive, unproven and tyrannical.

Mike Cassidy

West Hills

Opponents say that the bullet train project is “classic government overreach” that will “require taxpayer subsidies” — as if the taxpayer-funded freeways we’ve built aren’t a reflection of government policy as well.

Addressing transportation, growth and environmental concerns won’t be solved with a single

approach.

We taxpayers who support the bullet train voted to reallocate where some of our precious tax dollars go so that California’s residents could have better transportation options and greater flexibility in where they choose to live.

Christopher Dye

San Diego

I assume that the opponents of the bullet train would have also opposed the building of the national railway system, urban rail, bus and subway systems, interstate highways and airports as negative social engineering experiments.

Mark Johnson

Vista

Healthcare foe spreads the pain

Re “Key healthcare law foe went bankrupt — with medical bills,” March 9

How appropriate that Mary Brown, claiming government’s intrusion into personal freedom in a lawsuit over the healthcare law, used a governmental option to stick the taxpayers with all of her

debts.

Instead of her boisterous claims of righteousness that she “always pays her medical bills” and “I’m not fighting just for me,” she could have indeed taken the high road and excluded those medical bills from her bankruptcy.

I for one wish she would stop “fighting for me” and accept the healthcare law — so I wouldn’t have to pick up the tab for her medical bills.

Blair Caugherty

Palm Desert

And Brown stiffed all of us for more than $4,500 in unpaid medical bills.

Where is the outrage from the Republicans over the complete and total irresponsibility of this person deliberately refusing to pay for medical coverage and expecting all of us to pay for her bills?

Personal responsibility used to be the foundational bulwark of Republicans’ ideology, but their irrational hatred of President Obama has driven them to such extremes that they are increasingly not recognizable as a party that stands for anything other than intolerant social issues and wacky economic theories.

Where are the party’s leaders?

James B. Parsons

Canyon Lake

Hey, Virginia, what about dads?

Re “Virginia ultrasound bill is signed,” March 8

If the state of Virginia mandates that women seeking abortions have to undergo an ultrasound, shouldn’t the father of the baby also be present?

And maybe the state should mandate that the baby’s daddy agree to be present at every doctor’s appointment, the birth, and to help support the child for 18 years.

I mean, it only seems fair, right?

Donna Soskin

Encino

I am watching with amazement the debate over contraception and the Roman Catholic Church.

America has the highest gasoline prices for this time of year in history.

We have a huge deficit. We have people on unemployment for 99 weeks. We have the possibility of war in the Middle East.

We have all these major problems and yet all that the left, the media and Obama seem concerned about is “free” birth control for women.

Do we have our priorities screwed up or what?

Jerry E. Smith

Yorba Linda