Solve Internet access
The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted a number of issues that disproportionately affect low-income families, resulting in various government actions to alleviate the problems. As promising as it is to see action being taken, it's important to recognize that many of these problems existed long before this crisis and most will remain long after the pandemic has ended. One such issue is lack of access to reliable Internet for low-income and rural students.
This is not a problem created by the covid-19 pandemic. Low-income and rural students have been disadvantaged by lack of Internet access for as long as Internet access has been integral to the public-school curriculum. This summer, Governor Hutchinson announced that a portion of the money allocated by the CARES Act would be used for Wi-Fi hotspots to ensure Internet access for students, but what happens after the pandemic ends and the CARES Act funding runs out?
If public schools are going to continue to require Internet access to complete assignments, then the state should find a way to continue providing Internet to low-income and rural students. This pandemic has only made Internet access more embedded into our daily lives, no matter where in the state we live or how much money our families make. Overall, it's important that we recognize that many of the problems highlighted by this year will not end with the pandemic unless we do something to fix them.
Please ring the buzzer
Those who claim any pretense to objectivity watched the Trump-Biden debate as though staring into an abyss. The only way that this abyss can get deeper, darker and more depressing is if either one of the two contestants wins the election.
Let's face it; one is a narcissistic idiot and the other seems more than slightly confused. In the abyss we not only find Tweedledee and Tweedledum, we find the American voter who has accepted the stupid game-show format of the debate. "Mr. President, you have two minutes to answer the following question, and Mr. Vice President, you will have one minute to respond. Ring the bell if you need a hint, and each of you can make one phone call. The clock is ticking."
By contrast, when Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas in multiple debates (1858) the format was as follows: Opening speaker had 60 minutes of uninterrupted time, followed by his opponent who had 90 minutes, followed by a 30-minute rebuttal. Does this need more commentary?
Please pass the Prozac.
Thanks for memories
Thanks for the beautiful pictures of the C-47 flyover in last Friday's paper. I was on my way to work Thursday afternoon, and looked up and saw it all. What a thrill. I worked on the C-47s in the early '60s as an airman at the airbase.
Thanks for the memories, and happy 65th anniversary to the airbase.
WAYNE T. JONES
President Trump has said that he would like everyone that gets covid-19 to have the same fetal embryonic cocktails that he has taken to spread up their recovery. With millions of people already sick, how does he plan to provide these if he appoints a Supreme Court justice in hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade?
Jennifer Rubin points out Mitch McConnell's hypocrisy for denying Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016 yet promising to deliver a vote to replace Justice Ginsburg. But after accusing Trump of being "a president bent on burning down the house of democracy to keep power," she opines that Democrats will retaliate once a new president and Senate take office.
Lest I be accused of fear-mongering, let me quote her directly: "Democrats will expand the Supreme Court and change the lifetime tenure of justices," "Democrats will eliminate the legislative filibuster" and "Democrats will admit D.C. and Puerto Rico as states." In other words, Democrats will take actions to ensure they "burn down the house of democracy" by ensuring Democrats keep power for the foreseeable future.
While Ms. Rubin states these threats are reactions to confirming Justice Ginsburg's replacement, they are Democrat Party staples: President Roosevelt advocated court-packing during his administration and Democratic presidential candidates advocated court packing in the last year. The Democrat Party has been discussing D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood for months. These actions are intended to permanently skew both the Senate and electoral college in their favor.
Democrats have long indicated that once in power they will fundamentally change America and American institutions to ensure they have a permanent majority. Ms. Rubin advocates voting a straight ticket for Democrats in 2020. Doing so will subjugate the nation to one-party rule: unhindered, unbalanced and unhinged.
JAMES T. BROCKWAY
Republicans by rote
It's election time again and, right on cue, the Democrat-Gazette heads to the rusted-out and moldy filing cabinet over in the corner, opens it up, blows the dust off, and pulls out endorsements for pretty much every Republican in sight. All it seems is changed year after year is the name. This paper can endorse all the continued incompetence and corruption it pleases; that doesn't mean readers have to follow it.
For example, on Saturday there was an endorsement for Tom Cotton. Within seconds, I swiped to the left, meaning I spent about as much time on the endorsement as it was worth of my time. Once on page 7B, I read a good guest column by Lynn Foster, who points out the incompetent federal response to the pandemic, one that Tom Cotton stands behind. We will not get back to normal until there is a nationwide strategy on the virus, and right now we don't have one and governors are just winging it.
Anyone voting Republican this year is approving of the continued decline of our country.
Damned either way
Kamala Harris demonstrated a lack of political savvy with the proud statement during the debate that Joe Biden is a practicing Catholic. She lost both ways pointing that out; those who despise or are prejudiced against Catholics, and Catholics who would prefer he quit practicing and do it for real.