Old law worked just fine
Posted: August 4, 2014 at 3:24 a.m.
I notice that in your recent editorial, you take the position that Arkansas' voter-ID law should be improved, not repealed.
Why is it that Republicans cannot take that attitude toward our nation's Affordable Care Act? In some parts of the country, such as in Mr. Romney's state, Republicans originated a similar health-insurance program aimed at getting most people insured, making the insurance and health industries work better for all. Republicans seem to have no meaningful health-care alternative to propose, but today's GOP is all about repeal, repeal, and opposing almost anything initiated by Democrats or the president.
Republicans supposedly oppose unnecessary laws, and are against unnecessary government intrusions into the lives and rights of citizens. But, in the case of the ID law, we hear them reasoning that the requirement is not that hard to fulfill and shouldn't be burdensome. The same thing was said in the past about the old poll-tax system. When our new ID requirement was enacted, was voter fraud really indeed a great problem calling for a more restrictive solution?
With the new requirement, election officials at the local level are given guidelines for verifying a voter's identity as they refer to the photo. Such things as facial characteristics, hair style, hair color, and skin tone are to be noted. But how reliable are such features really? Personal appearances change, whereas a photo represents a person's appearance at a fixed moment in time.
I believe that our previous safeguards on the voting process were actually more reliable in preventing voter fraud, and at the same time better protected our citizens' right to vote without undue impediments.
Seems to be planned
Fifty-thousand children at the border. How did they get there? Why does it seem nobody is asking?
This is a huge logistical move. It would require huge relief stations along the way. There is evidence that the administration had ads, as early as January, to care for these children. That is the story. Seems to me to be clearly planned.
Where are your reporters? You are a huge part of the problem; 10,000 to one, you dare print this.
Waiving the red flag
Regarding Jo Lauer's suggestion about signing a waiver if one chooses to not wear a seat belt as to release taxpayers from financial liability should one be injured, I'd like to add a few more suggestions.
How about smokers; drinkers; overeaters; people who don't exercise; people who partake in high-risk activities such as motorcycle riding, skydiving, boating; and while at it, let's include nonsupport of those children who are born out of wedlock or whose parents don't support them after they are born. There are hundreds of thousands of people that the taxpayers take care of who create their own financial distress.
The question is: When do we draw the line on waivers?
Could a be harbinger
Have you noticed the illogical overabundance of South Asian (Indian) actors on American TV shows and in movies? Yes, an observation like this could be construed as biased or racist, but indulge me for a moment.
Although Indians comprise only around 1 percent of the American population, it seems they are prone to be cast in far greater numbers than blacks or Hispanics, the largest ethnic groups behind whites in the United States. I think that fact alone is suggestive of blatant favoritism on their behalf.
Here's my theory as to why this is happening: The usual domestic funding sources for TV networks, movie studios and production companies have been drying up, so these entities have gone to Asia to explore other sources of cash. A huge chunk of financing is now flowing from Indian investors, but with strings attached. Actors of Indian descent are appearing in as many shows, movies and commercials as possible.
I'm curious as to why Hollywood hasn't been called out on this, and most especially why this apparently isn't an issue for the Screen Actors Guild.
Did anyone in the entertainment industry actually think Americans wouldn't notice this demographic oddity? We'd notice left-handed German speakers with a limp if suddenly they appeared everywhere. Having Indians do so is no different. It's a statistical improbability, and one that begs for an explanation.
I think it isn't Russia or China that America should be worried about. It's India. The blatant, in-your-face overcasting of Indian actors in the entertainment industry is a harbinger of things to come.
Not equal treatment
I have no problem with Jo Lauer's recent request in her letter that individuals who desire to not wear a seat belt sign a waiver stating they will not take state funds for their care in case of injury.
What I do have a problem with is the selective passing of laws related to driver safety. Who is more likely to have a catastrophic injury requiring years of care? Me inside the cabin of a well-built automobile with airbags and unbuckled because of arthritic hips, or a motorcyclist driving around with no helmet on?
The lawmakers apparently pass laws based on who is the best-financed lobby group, not public safety. I believe these motorcycle groups are a danger to traffic safety and at extreme risk of traumatic injury. However, they do not operate under the same laws: They wear no helmets; travel in extended parties on major highways tying up traffic for miles; their engine noise rattles windows and disrupts the serenity of neighborhoods.
My point is this: Do not think for one minute these laws were passed for public safety? All I want to see is equal treatment under the law and not laws passed for those who have the most contributions to the lawmakers.
The unhealthy choice
On a recent trip to a chain drugstore, while I was third in line to check out, I overheard the checkout clerk say to a mom with a little boy, "would you like a jumbo candy bar?" The mom said no, thank you, and paid her bill. I thought, wow, now that's marketing--pushing huge candy bars to children.
But then the next person, about my age, 60 or so, was offered the same candy bar. The gentleman, looking upset, loudly says, "absolutely not."
Now here I am, next in line, wondering if the little checkout girl will offer me the same great deal or just give up. But no, persistence must be in the store's training program. I too was offered this huge chocolate candy bar.
I told the clerk no, thank you, that I was a diabetic and that probably would not be a good choice for me. I told her that as a pharmacy and a place where people get their medical supplies, maybe the store should be encouraging healthier choices at the checkout.
But as I was walking out the door, I heard the clerk say to the next person in line, "would you like a jumbo candy bar today?"
And, maybe, how about a 5,000-calorie power drink to wash it down with?
Get over his color
I am sick and tired of people referring to President Barack Obama as a black man. He has other blood in him than black, so why don't people realize that and call him white for a change?
Just goes to show how superficial people are. Get over skin color already!
I think he is a good president trying to do his best while fighting a hostile, do-nothing Congress, many of whom have said that if the president is for it, they are against it.
Put that in your search engine and learn some facts about our pitiful Congress and stop blaming our president for everything.
Half of one and ...
It seems today's battle cry from the extremist, left-wing, liberal Democrats in Washington is that any criticism of Barack Obama is to be branded as racist.
It has been widely reported as fact that Obama is the product of a mixed marriage. Therefore, I think if all criticism of Obama is addressed to his white half, then the racist label does not apply. This would preserve Obama's black half to continue being adored, propped up and excused by the Democrats and the lame-stream media where I believe true journalists no longer reside.
BERNARD A. FRAZER
North Little Rock
Of pride and gratitude
Re Bradley Gitz's column on flag-waving: I understood his column to mean that various reputable surveys indicate that liberals are less patriotic and "flag-waving" than conservatives.
I am a liberal in most areas. I will very occasionally embrace aspects of moderate conservative fiscal policies. But what I always am is grateful to be an American. I feel, every day, grateful to have been born in this great country.
Do we have problems? Yes. Do I think our governing bodies are dysfunctional and only play politics in order to keep their bloated jobs? Yes. Do I think vast numbers of people take advantage of policies designed to help the truly needy? Yes. Do I think vast numbers attempt to be the morality police and infuse religion into government? Yes.
I could go on and on about the problems. But what I never, ever think is that I want to chuck my citizenship and go live somewhere else. I can think of no other country where I could enjoy the freedoms and opportunities I have.
Perhaps my concern with the surveys is asking about pride rather than gratitude. In my experience, "proud" can be a dangerous place. Maybe we need more gratitude and less pride.
SUSAN J. KROTZ
An inconsistent vote
On July 30, Tom Cotton voted to enforce Obamacare. To be precise, he voted to sue the president to force him to require all businesses with 50 or more full-time and/or full-time-equivalent employees to provide health insurance to those full-time employees.
This seems to be totally inconsistent with Cotton's supposed opposition to Obamacare. What is Cotton's explanation to those businesses about why he wants them to provide health insurance to their employees when President Barack Obama does not want them to do so? I do not believe that he has an explanation.
Tom Cotton is my representative. I emailed him a few days before this vote pointing out the inconsistency of it. I received his form reply thanking me for my comments, but he ignored my comments.
Can surely do better
Asa Hutchinson, governor wannabe, claims he made an error when he took tax exemptions on two houses for multiple years. I believe this is called fraud.
Now, he says he wants to do the right thing, repay the money and get it behind him. Isn't that nice?
If he defrauded the system, we sure don't need him for governor! If he just screwed up, we don't need a governor who is that careless and irresponsible.
He could run for Congress again; they might make him a "special master" again and he can prosecute another president.
I well remember how cocky he was when it seems he tried his best to destroy President Bill Clinton. Arkansas can surely do better.
Editorial on 08/04/2014