Today's Paper Digital FAQ Obits River Valley Democrat-Gazette Newsletters 🎄Community Christmas Card NWA Screening Sites NWA Vaccine Information Virus Interactive Map Coronavirus FAQ Crime Razorback Sports Today's Photos Puzzles


March 4, 2018 at 1:47 a.m.

Save the Buffalo River

A large-scale confined hog operation that produces millions of gallons of animal waste does not belong on porous limestone bedrock in the watershed of America's first national river.

C&H Hog Farms must not be allowed to continue threatening the national park's resources, visitors who float, fish, and swim in the Buffalo River, and small businesses that rely on those visitors to provide jobs.


Eureka Springs

Control of the courts

Did you know that the fall 2018 election includes an amendment that will take away our constitutional separation of powers? It will strip Arkansas' highest court of the power to set its rules and procedures. It gives the Legislature control of Arkansas' courts.

It's a two-parter, as the Legislature is fond of doing. Last time it combined ethics reform and changing term limits. This time it's tort reform and gutting the power of the Arkansas Supreme Court. It's a power grab, to be accomplished by slipping in an apparently innocent procedural action.

Here is the relevant section: "SECTION 4. Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 80, § 9, is amended to read as follows: § 9. Annulment or amendment of rules. Any rules promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to Sections 5, 6(B), 7(B), 7(D), or 8 of this amendment may be annulled or amended, in whole or in part, by a three-fifths vote of the membership of each house of the General Assembly."

The whole amendment is available at Many people favor the first part of the amendment that limits fees to lawyers, but giving away control of the courts in exchange is a disastrous tradeoff. The Legislature is counting on voters failing to pay attention to the whole amendment. We can't let them get away with it!



Give him some credit

I knew one of the Trump haters would write a complaining letter about Mike Masterson's "Talking Trump" column on the Tuesday Voices page. Sure enough, the complaining letter was printed on the Thursday Voices page.

I had the opposite opinion. I was so grateful to read Mike Masterson's very accurate but positive "Talking Trump" column. He was accurately critical of President Trump's "[impulsive] tweets before giving reasoned thought to complex issues" and "publicizing inside matters best handled internally." But then Masterson follows with examples of Trump's remarkable accomplishments "despite sustained political resistance and calculated roadblocks." This is so unlike other media commentaries that are mostly negative, including most of the Voices columns of this paper and the many hate letters with exaggerated complaints.

I assume, and hope, that President Trump and his opposition have the same motivation; the desire to make America's individual liberty stronger, more safe, more healthy, and more prosperous and, most of all, more thankful to God for living in the most blessed country of the world. So far, I like most of President Trump's actions (not his tweets) to get improvements that are needed. I think many Americans share my opinion; we just aren't as mad and vocal as those who lost the election. Thanks, Mike Masterson, for giving the president some credit.



Should be a priority

After Sandy Hook, I thought curbing gun violence would be a national priority. But for five years it has been pushed aside by politicians owned by the NRA. Now that voters are fed up with the slaughtering of students, action is urgent.

As legislators and new commissions look for solutions, I hope they realize it is unfair to expect schools to protect children when large-capacity, semiautomatic weapons are easily acquired. Turning schools into high-security institutions with armed teachers is wrong for more reasons than I have words to say.

Experience says that common-sense gun laws can make a difference. Requiring identification as strict as what I provided for my enhanced Arkansas driver's license, a reasonable waiting period, "red flag" laws to deal with individuals who are perceived as threats, and a ban on large-capacity magazines are a start. It works in other countries.

Those countries also have criminals, people with mental issues and drug problems; yet their citizens aren't being gunned to death at schools, churches, and concerts. Those countries have hunters and gun clubs and people who are armed for self-protection. But their laws are stricter re what can be sold and who can purchase it.

But what reasonable person needs an AR-15? Or a magazine that fires more than five rounds? Anyone hunting with such weaponry is hardly a sportsman as I understand the word. And it's really overkill to say it's necessary to "protect your family." A shotgun will serve very well. And anyone who wants these weapons because it's a "right" needs to grow up and learn to act responsibly.

If you're appalled that children are being killed, that people on no-fly lists can purchase guns, and that buying an AR-15 is easier than getting a driver's license, let your representatives know it.


Little Rock

Preach it, Brummett

Re John Brummett's "Big talk, little import" in Thursday's paper: Amen, and dump Trump.



More than one view

We must point out to Mr. Nick Goodrich from Mountain Home that most people believe in free speech and having both sides of an opinion presented to us in this free and open society. Please note there were three letters published the same day as yours questioning the values and morals of Donald Trump--these along with yours suggesting John Brummett be dropped from the paper.

Thank goodness we have John Brummett, who writes a well-thought-out, straight to the point, with occasional humor, plus the facts, well researched column every time.

Hope you, Mr. Goodrich, appreciate the fact that because of a free press your letter was published, as were three others with opinions of Trump different from yours. Please don't suggest that John Brummett should be taken out of the paper because he has a different view from yours.

After all, your letter was published--and I read it!



Editorial on 03/04/2018

Print Headline: Letters


Sponsor Content