Political motives seen
It appears that Gov. Sarah Sanders continues her hypocritical acts demonstrating her dictatorial nature. One of her latest contradictory episodes was the interview Jan. 21 on "Face the Nation." When asked directly several times about the current legislative position on abortion, in a typical defensive manner she avoided the question more than once with generalities and zero specifics.
I agree strongly with Rex Nelson, who in his Jan. 7 column wrote: "For now, Arkansans have to live with the fact that a majority of voters in November 2022 chose a shallow, overly ambitious, paranoid political operative who cares more about getting on Fox News than she does about governing Arkansas."
In just a few months of autocratic rule with the help of the most uneducated Legislature in my voting lifetime of 60 years, she has made my native state a bastion of bans. Her defense is always "doing what is best for Arkansas," with little regard for the wishes of all citizens, including females and minorities.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize her political motives, playing to the unthinking ultra-right in view of a future presidential move.
JOHN W. CRAWFORD
The issue at the border can only be addressed by Congress. The existing laws need to be modified to address today's challenges. Pressures at the southern border will only grow as the effects of climate change, political unrest, violence, and poverty impact those to the south.
America is a country genuinely built on immigration and will continue to need immigration--organized and controlled immigration--to grow and prosper.
The birth rate in the USA no longer meets the economy's needs.
Birth rates have fallen by 23 percent since the Great Recession of 2007.
Today, the average American woman has about 1.6 children, down from three in 1950 and significantly below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 children needed to sustain a stable population.
I can proudly tell stories of recent immigrant families that have impacted America and myself through their hard labor and spirit of achievement, especially for desiring the best for their families.
Some groups use immigration challenges to divide, enrich themselves, cast blame, gain power, and promote falsehoods. If you look back on our own ugly history as a country, you find this has been done repeatedly.
Humanitarian modifications coupled with more resources to control and protect our southern border are needed, not to shut the border down but to bring a reasonable, safe, organized approach to allowing entrance into our country by needed immigration.
Compromise is not an ugly word or process. We all do it every day. Ask yourself, those who are unwilling to compromise even on the most significant issues, who are they really serving?
I was in Little Rock for the Jan. 19 screening of the new documentary film about the Elaine Massacre, "We've Just Begun," reviewed by Philip Martin. Although overall I appreciated Martin's comments about the work, I was a bit put off by what felt to me like a reverberating theme: a warning against believing everything you see in a documentary about white terror against a Black community.
To be fair, Martin's caution is not just about this film. He was referring in general to all documentaries and other nonfiction works that viewers may be fooled into thinking represent indisputable fact. That is not a helpful warning for adults. We tend to believe claims that are consistent with our current point of view and no amount of bias warning will change that, whether the facts can be disputed or not.
So, I think the people most helped (and by helped I mean affirmed and comforted) by Martin's warning would be white descendants of Elaine Massacre perpetrators, massacre-deniers, and people who subscribe faithfully to whitewashed accounts of Arkansas history. Hearing perspectives on white terror from the descendants of white perpetrators of racial violence in Elaine and throughout Arkansas history would be enriching.
As is true with this film, we hear from descendants of victims about what happened and the impacts on their families and community. But what about the other side, the white side? What would the descendants of the white perpetrators say about what their people did, how it affected their community, and the nature of the legacy that was handed down through generations of their families?