Letters

Without their support

Recent letters to the Democrat-Gazette have stated that the United States does not need: 1. the mainstream media, whatever that is; 2. Californians; and 3. New Yorkers. A letter from L.J. Mickey Jordan of Hot Springs Village, published Nov. 19, is typical of these letters.

New York City is the financial capital of the U.S. Mr. Jordan's local bank could not function without it; his credit cards would be useless; he would quickly be reduced to bartering for goods and services. Fox News is a New York corporation. Mr. Jordan would have to do without his favorite news source.

California is the home of Apple and Intel. No more iPhones for Mr. Jordan and his friends; most of his computers wouldn't work. California's enormous agricultural sector would no longer send produce to Mr. Jordan.

This is just a random sampling of what Hot Springs Village would do without since, according to Mr. Jordan, "the United States of America can function on its own, free from their support." What would New York and California have to do without if they could function on their own, without Mr. Jordan's support? Why--they would have to do without Mr. Jordan.

JOHN H. BARCROFT

Fayetteville

America bought con

How did it happen? First off, Hillary won the popular vote. Of this there is no question, no doubt, none whatsoever.

What happened is that one candidate took the electoral vote. The question is: How did this happen? Possible fraud? I said this immediately, as soon as it happened. No way did the candidate legally take all those swing states. Statistically nearly impossible.

How did this happen? That is something that will have to be determined by those who know how to figure this kind of stuff out. It ain't me. But I think a con probably did happen.

But down to how does a candidate get almost half of the vote anyway without monkey business? I believe the man is a con artist. By "winning" the con way. When a con man gets caught in the con, up against the wall, taken to court, before he goes to court, he tries to buy his opponent off.

But how does he con people? A very high percentage of people are susceptible to the con. Tell someone what they want to hear, they'll believe it. Just like if you wave a piece of raw steak under a hungry dog's nose. He'll first start salivating, then he'll jump up and try to grab it. If he's hungry enough, he might even fight you for it.

Those who voted for the con went for the piece of steak being waved under their nose. They started salivating. They jumped for it. But the steak is now being jerked away. It was always about the con. And half the American voters bought the con bigly.

MARIANNE BEASLEY

Fayetteville

Understanding lacks

Once again, in Sunday's paper, we see that people don't seem to understand the electoral college. The purpose is to even out the influence of large versus small states. Without the electoral college, your vote--in a small state such as Arkansas, or Louisiana, or Tennessee, or Alabama, or Iowa, or many others--means exactly squat.

Everyone knew, going in, the rules of the game. It was played by the rules. Donald Trump won. Get over it.

DAVID ROBINSON

Tuckerman

On getting, giving it

So it seems Julia Randle's children and grandchildren have no manners! She said to get respect you have to give respect. Julia, read it again for yourself, you don't get it. I guess this is what is called an oxymoron.

ANNE DAVIS

Little Rock

Markets and language

I love Bernadette Kinlaw's weekly column, but have two nits to pick. First, she supposes you open a restaurant that serves two customers daily during week one and four during week two. You tell investors there has been a 100 percent increase in business. Kinlaw remarks: "You haven't lied, but business isn't exactly booming."

I disagree. You lied because you meant "to deceive or give a false impression" (second definition of the noun "lie" in the American Heritage Dictionary). Why bother with this distinction? Because lies of omission are a favorite technique of corporate media, politics and propaganda more generally.

Second, Kinlaw cites an example of redundancy but unfortunately adds: "When it comes to the economy, of course an 'upswing' is positive." Not necessarily. The problem is that the preceding boom was likely caused by an artificial injection of money and credit (debt) courtesy of the Federal Reserve, resulting in huge distortions, especially malinvestment. A recession/depression is the inevitable hangover from a "party on, Garth" boom.

Recession is recovery of economic health and need not last long because markets adjust rapidly in the absence of government mucking things up à la the 1930s. Interfering with the process via bailouts, money-printing, more debt and deficit spending obstructs adjustments across industry in accord with true consumer demand. Massive, unprecedented intervention caused our "punk" recovery of the past eight years. I believe conditions for a sustainable expansion were never allowed to emerge.

MORGAN O. REYNOLDS

Hot Springs Village

Keep current system

There has been much talk about changing the election of our president from the electoral college, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, to a popular-vote system. I hope our leaders give this careful thought before changing a system that has worked for at least 200 years.

Under the current system, each state has electoral votes proportional to their representation in Congress. This representation is based on the population of each state.

If you change to a popular-vote system, larger states such as California and New York will have a much larger say in who is elected.

Take, for example, the 2016 presidential election. At this point in time, Donald Trump leads in the electoral college vote to become the next president. Under the current system, California has 55 votes. At the same time, Hilary Clinton leads the popular vote by roughly 2.2 million votes. She leads in California alone by roughly 3.4 million votes. Therefore, if this election's results were based on the popular vote, Hilary Clinton would have won the election just using the lead she had in California.

To me, this would be unfair as California alone has the capability of swaying an election like this over whatever the other 49 states want. To me, California having a proportional 55 electoral votes is more reasonable.

Think about it.

LARRY OLSEN

Sherwood

Editorial on 12/01/2016

Upcoming Events