McCain, and money better spent elsewhere
I had hoped to refrain from criticizing Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) until after his corpse was delivered to the landfill, but, for all of your blathering about how wonderful the recently departed McCain was, you've seriously missed McCain's greatest legacy: President Trump.
The McCain wing of the Republican Party is what caused the populist revolt giving us Trump. While you guys bleat about his integrity, McCain was one of the biggest liars in the Republican leadership. He would show up in Arizona to tell his constituents how conservative he was then return to Washington and continue his work with the Chamber of Commerce to throw the borders wide open and destroy the value of American labor. Yes, McCain was first and foremost a globalist. His biggest recent lie? That he'd get rid of the ACA. He had his chance to follow through on that campaign promise, but instead confirmed that his word to the people who voted for him means nothing. Had McCain and the rest of his ilk governed as they campaigned there would be no President Trump.
On a side note: I keep seeing your appeals for support of your product through subscribing to your online publication. While I'm happy to pick up your weekly magazine for free at Kroger to check out the entertainment section and see what the proletariat is thinking these days, your open contempt for those of us who disagree with you politically kinda tells me I have better places to spend my money. It would be insane for me to financially support those who so easily call me a racist, homophobe, misogynist, xenophobe or anything else just because I didn't vote for the most incompetent candidate in recent history (that being Hillary the Great). Political disagreement isn't hate, and I'll continue to eat at Chick-Fil-A.
On minimum wage
I just finished your article in the Arkansas Times ("The wage divide," Aug. 23) and thought it was very concise and to the point. I especially liked the part about our "esteemed" attorney general. I plan to vote for the minimum wage increase and will pass the message to co-workers, friends, family and anyone that will listen.
I am not familiar with the other initiative's that will be on the ballot this fall and hope that you will publish each one. I have voted since I turned 18 in 1972 and always want to be informed about people and initiatives that I'm presented with. I vote Democrat most of the time, as I care about Arkansans and Americans and worry about the future for my 7-year-old grandson. Thank you for your many articles that hit home with Arkansans that truly care about each other.
David W. Byrd
Brain on sex
Good work to Autumn Tolbert ("Dress code bias," Aug. 23) for her explanation of the underlying bias of dress codes. Women do not cause the sexual response of men. A man's sexual thoughts and actions are entirely determined by his own brain. Bodies respond to the brain's interpretations of stimulus. It is not the body of a woman that "turns" a man on, it is that man's brain telling his body what to do. Another man might look at the same body and not be the least "turned" on. We have homosexual men to thank for proving this logical argument. It is well known in the psychology of stimulus and response. Because the brain determines sexual response, the brain can chose how to express sexuality. Many men kindly keep their sexual response to themselves except when they are with a willing partner. Many men do the hard work of interpreting all the tiniest clues to find out who is willing to share their sexual response. These men have not gotten the recognition they well deserve in the "Me Too" movement. They are the rule that proves the exception. They are my heroes by proving considerate restraint is possible, even when no one is watching.
Like all heroes, we must ask them to do even more and somehow explain how they deal with their sexuality to boys. Women have an equal responsibility to untangle sexual desire and social kindness, but men have the experience and authority to speak to boys about male sexual response. To all you kind men out there, please do.
J. Rain Mako
My best friends are Liberals. I love them like I love biscuits and gravy, but they can be annoying at times. They're better informed on every issue, more culturally sensitive, and greener than I could ever hope to be. When I dine with my liberal friends I am constantly worried that my shoes were made by underage workers, my pronouns are out of date, and the chicken on my plate was raised in substandard housing.
You may have noticed that nearly all the Word Police are liberals. They defy you to try and keep up with the lexicon. Example: Zombies were Zombies for years. Then we were told they were to be called the Living Impaired. Now it's the Vitally Challenged. Who decides this stuff? Surely it's not the Zombies.
There is a scene in the movie "Moneyball" where Billy Bean, the general manager of the Oakland Athletics —played by Brad Pitt — is on the phone trying to make a deal with another GM. Pitt gets the answer he wants and hangs up immediately. Pitt's sidekick, played by Jonah Hill, points out that the other GM had more to say. "When you get the answer you want," Pitt explains, "Hang up."
These are desperate times, but in a way, much simpler. When vetting somebody, liberals no longer need to know what brand of bottled water that person drinks or which fast-food restaurant they've been boycotting. The only thing liberals need to know is if that other person is voting blue in November.
When you get the answer you want, hang up.
From the web
In response to Tolbert's Aug. 23 column:
Young women, at an early age, begin to learn of their power over the boys simply by the turn of an ankle, the wink of an eye.
Men are visual creatures; at an early age, creature aptly describes the boy brain. Girls are generally more focused, not as easy to distract.
Has nothing to do with some nebulous "misogyny," but on the basics of nature. For those few of us adults that remember, and are honest, girls at that age freely exploited their looks for quite a bit of gain. Their nature could be generously described as predatory.
Probably the best thing about uniforms is they take away all the distractions that kids use against each other, so teachers can focus on the important things, like teaching.
Those supposed calls for allowing individual expression forget that school is for learning, and for social engagement, but also for instilling some sense of discipline in how boys and girls grow to deal with each other on a truly level playing field.
In response to an Arkansas Blog item about a committee's decision to move the Arkansas Governor's School to Arkansas Tech from Hendrix College, where it's been held for 38 years:
I've commented about this extensively in response to another article, but I'll add these practical considerations:
1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. These suggestions of intellectual bias, favoritism to a certain college, or prejudice against certain viewpoints reflect culture war nonsense and jealousy.
2) Do not underestimate the value of holding the program on a campus that has no summer school for college students. Placing 300 high school minors in a five-week residential program is challenging enough socially. (I can think of no couple that lasted more than five minutes hiding behind a hedgerow or slipping into an opposite sex dorm without being rounded up and scattered by the campus staff at Hendrix).
Now add a significant population of college students to that mix, and consider the impact upon enforcement of very important rules. :)
So, the main thing is that Governor's School is for Dem/lib indoctrination and y'all are scared that won't be the case in Russellville?
R'ville is pretty sketchy, whut with them sex toy expos up thar at ATU.
Say, mebbee THAT'S why Jerry [Cox] is so keen to talk at the G school! He might want a coed or two (or three) to give a demo.
But really, y'all don't give a flip about college students being there. Total ruse. Be honest at least.
Justsomeguy — I can only speak for myself, but my daughter went to Governor's School in '91. Having the campus to themselves was a big deal. It made the kids feel they really were worth the effort. I never much thought about the safety issue until someone brought it up this week, but 1991 is more than 25 years ago, and it wasn't something we worried about. People DO care. You're just looking for an argument about something with which you apparently have very little experience. Did you go? Do you have a kid who went?
No, I did not. I have quite a few friends who did. Boys would wear drag just to be provocative. All sorts of things Democrats love. I don't think attending is prerequisite to having a valid opinion. For instance, many of the commenters here have strong opinions on Medicaid, war and race despite not being recipients, soldiers or minorities.