Dismissive discourse
So what's "the most annoying part of our debate over guns"? Some might think it's a clown like Ted Nugent, the has-been rocker and certified nutcase who slammed the Parkland school shooting survivors as "soulless" because they advocate for common-sense gun control. Others might cite the delusional right-wingers who claim these same students' efforts are "communist-inspired."
But no, for your columnist, Bradley Gitz, the most annoying part of the gun debate is young David Hogg, one of the most outspoken of the Parkland survivors. Gitz gripes that Hogg goes around spouting "anti-gun, anti-NRA gibberish." Can't have that, can we? And he glibly dismisses Hogg's arguments by wisecracking that they aren't worth considering because the young man "hasn't completed puberty."
One wonders if Professor Gitz ever employs this same insulting line with any young students who dare challenge his hectoring pronouncements--and how well it goes over in the classroom when he does.
CRAIG SMITH
Little Rock
About opening lines
I read with interest Phil Martin's Sunday column last week about baseball. The opening line certainly was interesting:
"One of the dragons I've chased for decades is the soft sensation of occasioning square contact between a length of ash and a horsehide-covered baseball."
All this and, uncharacteristically, with only one personal pronoun.
I can't say that this is the worst opening sentence ever. In fact, there is a yearly contest for the worst opening line, the Bulwer-Lytton contest. It was named for the British novelist Edward George Bulwer-Lytton, the author of the famous Peanuts comic strip catchphrase "It was a dark and stormy night ..." A few of the opening lines by contest winners are worse than this one.
Of course, the participants in this competition are trying to write bad sentences.
CONNIE MESKIMEN
Hot Springs
Don't have knowledge
I once asked a group of 25 18-year-olds: "Who was Adolf Hitler?" Not one had ever heard of him. None had ever heard of the Vietnam War. None could name even one country the U.S. fought against in World War II. Let 16-year-olds vote? I don't think so.
Why does the Washington Post want to let 16-year-olds vote? Because they protested, demanding that civil liberties be taken away by the government. I think whoever is running the Washington Post is just plain stupid. There's no other word for it. Stupid.
FRANK LATIMER
Sherwood
Editorial on 04/23/2018