Letters

Reality in plain sight

Gary Lemon must have been living under a rock the last two years. He decries Linda Farrell for accusing Donald Trump of a number of failings, stating that her comments regarding the president were, among other things, "unconscionable" and a "despicable lie." He asks: "Where were the fact checkers?"

The fact-checkers were on the job. Mr. Trump has displayed all of the traits described by Ms. Farrell, which have been more than sufficiently documented in this newspaper and elsewhere, starting with the infamous Billy Bush tape, and often from the president's own mouth or Twitter account. These are all verifiable statements and events.

The late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that "one is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Mr. Lemon is surely entitled to his opinion. The beauty of America is that he is not only entitled to it, but also to express it in a public forum. He does, however, need to get his facts right. The allegations made by Ms. Farrell are demonstrably correct, and supported by publicly available information. Perhaps Mr. Lemon should get a fact-checker, and learn to see reality when it is in plain sight.

THOMAS A. BECKETT

Siloam Springs

Opinion disingenuous

On May 28, readers may have seen a guest opinion supporting Issue 1, a proposed amendment for tort reform, better understood as the limitation of class-action lawsuits.

My overall response can be reduced to a charge of hysterical tone and disingenuous language. Such phrases as "business owners and job creators" (heroic), "ambulance-chasing lawyers" and "out-of-state ambulance chasers" (slanderous, derogatory), and "frivolous lawsuits" (how many out of all lawsuits are these?) reveal the author's stark biases and manipulation of real circumstances. Overall, the article suggests that lawsuits cost citizens money or jobs.

There is nothing inherent in tort law that limits a "job creator" from creating jobs. On the other hand, an upfront assurance that the employer cannot be sued by employees will free that creator from some measure of concern for the welfare of employees, and thus, the author implies, result in creation of even more jobs. Those who value citizens' access to class-action law are interested in the quality, safety, and social integrity of any job (or service), not just the number available.

Likewise, there is nothing in tort law that keeps doctors from practicing in small and rural communities, but the guest opinion insists, without substantiation, that the lack of good medical care anywhere is a product of lawsuits. However, if courts are fair, good practice in general need not be afraid; access to class-action is a shield between patients and the all-too-real potential of shoddy practice.

If you value the traditional notion of America as a relatively classless society, then you cannot desire the unbound elevation of privilege in industry of any kind. As we learn again to discern tyrants from leaders, we should also reject the privileges of magnates and uphold the rights of individuals. Only in that direction does the goal of equality lie. Before voting, think more than once about tort reform and Issue 1.

SHEARLE FURNISH

Little Rock

Editorial on 06/18/2018

Upcoming Events