Counting handshakes
I am an avid reader of Voices; however, I've never written a letter before.
I was disgusted with the fake media person who came up with the idea that the first lady's shoe heels were too high, or counted how many handshakes or hugs the president did while in Texas the first time.
Who gets paid to count? Fire them!
MARY JO DAVIS
Clinton
Remedy amendment
To ensure that the Constitution would last, the framers added Article V, which explains the amendment process. Each amendment added changes to the document to correct an unforeseen problem.
For example, the 12th Amendment corrected Article II by having the president and his vice president elected together. Originally the candidate with the most votes became president and the person with the second-most votes became vice president. This gave us President John Adams, a Federalist, and Vice President Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican. So it was changed. Likewise, the 17th Amendment allowed for the popular election of senators by the people of the states. The original method in Article I had senators chosen by state legislatures. This was so divisive that seats would often remain vacant or bribes would be accepted to fill them.
Amendments were even used to correct other amendments. The 21st Amendment corrected the 18th Amendment, which unsuccessfully tried to prohibit the making/sale of alcohol.
The Second Amendment was written to make sure that a state's militia would be armed. Today each state has its National Guard along with its own well-stocked armory. National Guardsmen no longer need to bring their weapons from home. It is about time that the Second Amendment was updated to reflect this fact.
Today's citizens should safely have guns for hunting, target practice, and museums or private collections. I would invite those who participate in these activities to write an amendment that would remedy the archaic Second Amendment in its present form.
AIMEE CROCHET
West Fork
Don't put limits on it
Regarding the complaint of too many spiritual letters in the letters to the editor, who is going to determine how many is too many?
Why would you want to limit free speech to just Christians? Do we also have to limit letters that are too political, too pro-homosexual, too pro-abortion, etc.? Do you not see the danger of trying to silence the voice of a certain group just because you are uncomfortable with their opinion?
When a letter is printed that you don't agree with, here's a new idea: Don't read it.
I understand, the word of God has power and it convicts you. Wonderful, that's it's purpose. God loves you and desires a relationship with everyone.
PHYLLIS FARISH
Bella Vista
Truth in human mind
It is more than obvious; truth is not easily admitted into the human mind. If one attempts to convince most people that a politician of his or her political party is no better than an ordinary mortal, they will often resent and repudiate that suggestion.
Man is peculiar; he can recognize the absurdities of the other party, but cannot see those of his own. This happened during the last presidential election. Trump was certainly no bargain, but Hillary Clinton carried enough baggage to sink an oil tanker. However, it was the progressives' fondest delusion that she would save the world.
I have always supported liberal causes, but after the election, I was sadly disappointed in the reaction of many progressives, which leads me to believe we are producing a nation of whiners and crybabies who could not handle a real crisis if their lives depended upon it.
The principle of liberal democracy, which inspired the founding fathers, was that controversial questions should be decided by argument rather than by force. Today there are elements embedded in the progressive movement that believe certain opinions are absolutely indisputable, and that no argument against them should be heard. No one having heard but one side of any argument or question can be enlightened on the subject.
I would caution the progressives that when you throw out the bathwater, take care that you don't also throw out the baby in the process. Man has a history of discarding the good along with the bad.
Semper fi.
AL CASE
Onia
Impeccable musician
Why does the Duke Ellington Band remain forever frozen in time? Listening to recordings of Ellington's music, even those separated by more than half a century, I am alarmed to discover that there is scarcely any difference between them. His music, narrow enough in its compass, appears not to have evolved throughout all those years.
By contrast, Stan Kenton, true to his European heritage, was always the restless explorer, constantly searching for fresh, innovative ways to express his creativity and, in so doing, further the cause of American music. A true original, he didn't give a damn about what other music-makers were doing or what critics were saying about him, concerned only with enriching the world of music in his own inimitable way.
Kenton didn't always succeed in his mission, of course, but when he did, he did so in spectacular fashion. There are few more thrilling sounds than the Stan Kenton Orchestra at its best and in full flight and, with this in mind, I would recommend that everyone listen to Kenton at the Tropicana, recorded in 1959. This faultless performance has everything, with impeccable musicianship, great melodic strength, superb arrangements and fabulous solos by, among others, Lennie Niehaus, Archie LeCoque, Jack Sheldon, Billy Root, Kent Larsen and Richie Kamuca.
Incidentally, I suspect that Kenton would have hated to hear the use of the term "jazz" when ascribed to his music.
WILLIAM G. CARLYLE
Little Rock
Editorial on 10/09/2017