Mustard on that one
Oh, the misguided soul who visited the Travs’ opener and violated the first rule about condiments for the American hot dog. Mustard is the primary (and only) garnishment allowed on this glorious repast.
In 2005, the U.S.-based National Hot Dog and Sausage Council’s survey found that 32 percent of respondents preferred mustard, to 23 percent preferring (ugh) ketchup. That, in addition to Dirty Harry’s pronouncement, says that mustard is king on a good hot dog.
So, if you value your ball game, put down that ketchup bottle and grab the mustard or I’ll call Dirty Harry to make your day. Go Travs! (I still miss Ray Winder Field.) ORVILLE CLIFT Fayetteville
Imperils rural schools
I must admit that I was quite surprised to read in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette the guest column by Renee Carr, executive director of the Rural Community Alliance, given the newspaper’s apparent bias against rural schools.
A few years ago when then-Gov. Mike Huckabee and his knight on a white horse in the Arkansas Senate, former Sen. Jim Argue, were in the process of demolishing rural Arkansas by shuttering as many schools as possible, I submitted a guest column that was not printed, I felt because the newspaper supported their inquisition. In my column I cited research documents printed in The Progressive Farmer magazine proving that rural schools actually better educated their students, had far more community support, allowed for more student and parent participation, and had much less disciplinary problems than larger urban and city schools.
Being a product of a rural school (Perryville) where I received an excellent education, I was as well-prepared academically for college and professional school as anyone from a large-city school and much better prepared socially than most.
Ms. Carr hits the nail on the head: Act 60 needs to be repealed before rural Arkansas communities are totally destroyed.
BUFORD J. SUFFRIDGE North Little Rock
To get folks to listen
After reading Mr. Rick Owen’s letter on climate change, I have a few suggestions for him if he wants to get people to listen to him:
Stop saying the “evidence is not debatable.” It certainly is debatable. Why should I listen to you when you have already told me my point of view doesn’t count?
Acknowledge that great strides have been made already, even by doubters of climate-change science. Much of our energy use has been greatly altered already-at great expense and some inconvenience.
Disparaging the concept of attaining wealth with cheap energy seems silly. Is the alternative not attaining wealth with renewable energy? If so, please explain to us how that will work.
Tell us frankly how much your ideas will cost. How will our lives change? How much control will we cede in the energy arena to the government?
While you’re doing that, I will be out on the deck charcoal-grilling a couple of juicy steaks.
TOM CANDELA Bella Vista
Voices drowned out
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case gave corporations, unions, super-PACs, etc., unlimited money-contribution rights to affect elections and political issues
The Supreme Court’s ruling this month in the McCutcheon case gave individuals similar unlimited fund-expenditure rights for like purposes.
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, originally specified that each House district contains 30,000 individuals. When the number of representatives was stabilized, that number varies after each 10-year census. I think the current count is about 600,000.
My point is that the Constitution gives each individual equal weight in the selection of the person to represent them in Congress. My portion of influence in this vital representation issue is completely obliterated by the influx of money from outside sources spewing distortions, exaggerations, innuendos and downright lies.
The court’s primary responsibility is to protect rights granted in the Constitution. By assuming free speech is an unlimited right (What happened to the ban against yelling “fire” in a darkened theater or the legality of suing someone for libel?), the court followed the desires of the Republican Party, and in doing so, destroyed my Constitutional right to an equal voice in selecting my representative.
I think these rulings by the court represent an impeachable offense. Oh yes, the Constitution does include such action if needed.
I urge some progressive-minded think tank to study this issue and pursue it if feasible before the 2014 November election cycle. That vote could well be instrumental in destroying our democracy.
ROBERT G. HALL Jacksonville
Increase could harm
Who could honestly be against a minimum-wage increase? Shouldn’t someone trying to work and support themselves or a family receive a living wage? Does working become less attractive when you can receive more on public assistance for doing nothing?
If you could (and normally you can’t) receive 40 hours a week at $7.25 per hour, your gross pay is $290 per week. After taxes you perhaps have $250 per week. If you could work 40 hours per week for 52 weeks, your gross would be $15,080 and your take home about $13,000. The federal poverty level for a three-person family is $18,310. Any decent person should be for a minimum-wage increase.
Now let me explain why I’m against it. In the 10 minimum-wage increases from 1979 to 2009, I have witnessed the same phenomenon each time. As soon as an increase went into effect, the cost of everything rose,and I don’t mean just service-sector industries most affected by the increase-I mean everything. One would think that a minimum-wage increase adversely affected every form of goods and services. I’ve always viewed this as an opportunity for all forms of business to raise their prices whether they were affected or not.
The bottom line is still the same for the very people you are trying to help: A subsequent increase in the cost of goods and services more than offsets the pay increase and leaves them and all consumers worse off than before.
Who is this really helping?
PHILLIP A. RAMBIN Bigelow
Editorial, Pages 14 on 04/22/2014