Today's Paper Latest Elections Sports Core Values Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles Archive Story ideas iPad

OPINION | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: We don't deserve this | Gangster government | The child has rights

May 9, 2022 at 4:31 a.m.

We don't deserve this

You probably won't print this, but I am not the only person who feels this way.

I am so disgusted with this administration. The amount of ignorance and non-leadership is beyond belief, and sadly no one in authority seems to care. How can our president be so cavalier about what matters to Americans?

Apathy and complacency are alive and well. There is more concern over a country halfway around the world than the country he leads. America needs relief on every front. It looks more like he hates America.

Average Americans do not deserve this.

I am afraid for our country. Power and greed are in charge. If we don't turn this around, millions of hardworking people will lose everything they have worked for. Please, elected officials, do something.


Heber Springs

Gangster government

Bradley Gitz's column on May 2 along with the editorial endorsement on the same date seem to me to miss the mark. Mr. Gitz uses the first five paragraphs to condemn the woke movement and point out the need to provide a cost-benefit situation for corporations that practice this silliness. Then comes the big but when discussing Florida's reaction to Disney's efforts to punish Florida for recent legislative efforts.

Mr. Gitz first describes Florida's reaction as a bill of attainder and that Florida has violated the rule of law. He then asserts the real solution should be efforts to adversely affect Disney's profit. A bill of attainder is a legislative act directed against an individual finding him guilty of a crime, usually treason, and inflicting capital punishment, all without the ordinary resort to judicial proceeding.

A review of the actual relationship between Disney and Florida is instructive. At some point in the past Disney approached the government and proposed an economic arrangement not available to most private corporations under Florida law. If Florida would give it privileges and benefits not available to others, Disney would make substantial profits, and a byproduct of those profits would be economic benefits to Florida and its citizens. Within this arrangement there was never the understanding that Florida would subordinate its policymaking duties and responsibilities to the dictates of Disney. This arrangement has always existed at the will and pleasure of the state of Florida.

Mr. Gitz asserts that to react to efforts of Disney to frustrate and pressure the policymakers of Florida is somehow a constitutional violation. Constitutional violations involve the deprivation of a constitutional right. The withdrawing of a privilege not granted others is quite a different matter.

Mr. Gitz fails to recognize that the whole point of Florida's revoking the privileged status of Disney was to exact a price for its efforts to punish Florida. That price was an adverse impact on profit, which actually is the solution he has proposed.

A small dose of gangster government properly applied might be the correct antidote to the woke flu Mr. Gitz laments.



The child has rights

I see an unending line of women proclaiming it is their body and no one can force them to have a child. I agree, it was their body, and they had every right not to get pregnant. However, just like a foster parent or an adoptive parent or a natural parent, once that decision to take on the role of parent is initiated, your rights were trumped by the needs of the child. It is your choice to not get pregnant, but if you do, the child has rights, and the state must act to protect them.



Constitutional crisis?

In the Supreme Court's recently leaked draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito asserts that the right to privacy for a woman in her personal decision-making process is not in the Constitution. The supporters of Justice Alito's opinion are making quite a fuss about the loss of privacy the court has experienced in its decision-making process.

I can't understand where these supporters think the court gets its right of privacy. After all, it's not in the Constitution.



Print Headline: Letters


Sponsor Content