The futility of writing
Do they care? Do they read? Then why not a direct answer to our letters?
These questions are directed to all elected officials on every level of government, whether it be local, state or national. When one does write a letter, that person should at least receive a reply that addresses the concern/complaint/suggestion. This is common courtesy. Instead, one receives a "form letter" that doesn't even pertain to the letter written.
Makes one wonder if the elected officials even care what is important to their constituents or if they are just interested in their agenda. Yet voters are encouraged to write or call their elected officials.
SK ONEIL
Sherwood
Priorities are skewed
A pet dog dies after being placed in the overhead bin of a commercial airliner. Two U.S. senators file a bill to make it a punishable offense to do such a thing. They named the bill the "Welfare Of Our Furry Friends" (WOOFF) Act. I am not kidding!
Seventeen of our children are killed in one of our schools and the response from the Congress is a moment of silent reflection, followed by prayers, followed by a statement of how it is too early to think about legislation, followed by more silence. While not discounting the death of one's pet, the obvious irony makes one weep.
We elect people to represent us in the Congress. They are professionals in what they do and they have access to reams of information unavailable to us. They also have the time to read and consider all that information in addition to our desires. After reflection we expect them to cast their votes on our behalf in the best interest of the country and society. What seems apparent is that we are getting people who buy our vote and then cast their votes almost exclusively on behalf of their interests with the intent of remaining in office.
Maybe it is time to revisit term limits. How about removing the ever-present need in Congress to raise huge sums of money for the purpose of being re-elected? A limit of one term for all. At the present time the only seemingly honest declarations from congressional members are coming from those who have declined to stand for re-election. Worth serious consideration?
RICHARD PICARD
Little Rock
Arrogance on a bike
Recently, while walking at Two Rivers Park, a bicyclist yelled at me to "make sure you stay on your side of the path, pal." Later, I saw the same individual, along with two other bicyclists, riding slowly in the middle of the road. There were five vehicles behind them, awaiting opportunities to pass.
Apparently these bicyclists, and many others, think that pedestrians and vehicles should yield to them. That's either arrogant or stupid.
Thanks for letting me vent.
SCOTT THROWER
Little Rock
Should consider costs
A recent Democrat-Gazette guest column supported the wind power proposed for Arkansas via SWEPCO's Wind Catcher project. Although wind energy has no fuel costs, there are significant costs involved in construction, maintenance and installation of components, and in building new transmission lines. Further, consideration must be paid not only to what wind power costs when it is being produced and delivered, but also what power costs when the wind does not blow and no wind power is available. As the fraction of wind power rises, what do Arkansas customers do when the wind power suddenly falls to zero? Wind power is intermittent and simply not fully reliable or dispatchable. With the (sometime) availability of wind power, there will be pressure to close coal power plants as no longer being required. If Arkansas elects to keep gas-fired or coal-fired plants at standby in order to furnish power when wind fails, this would require that these plants be maintained in operational readiness.
Arkansas may be forced to simultaneously support a new wind-power contract and maintain most of the power capabilities it now has. This would not be a way to decrease electricity costs. An undesirable alternative would be to curtail power delivered to Arkansas customers, possibly on a moment's notice. This important issue should be fully evaluated in any consideration of SWEPCO wind power.
DONALD BOGARD
Bentonville
A great place to start
Lately, many have been reducing the conversation about gun violence to an "us versus them," "guns or no guns" debate, as if the only options anyone is suggesting are to do nothing or ban all guns.
We must talk about finding practical ways to reduce gun violence by angry, vicious, irresponsible people. We don't have to just throw our hands up. We have to find places where reasonable people can agree and build from there.
A great starting place is criminal background checks on all gun purchases, including unlicensed sellers (Internet, gun shows, private sales). Eighty-four percent of American adults surveyed by Pew Research in 2017 agree--84 percent! So why isn't this policy yet?
This is a concrete measure we can take that will prevent some guns from getting into the wrong hands. Will it stop every person with murderous intent? No. Will it save at least one life? Probably. And "whoever saves one life saves the world entire."
I hope French Hill will consider stepping up and being a leader on this action to make America safer.
LISA STINE
North Little Rock
Editorial on 03/21/2018