So, let me see if I have this right: the changing face of a diverse and bohemian new Conway is represented on your recent cover by three white guys from the same college fraternity?
These are fine fellows, but as a resident of Conway for years (Was I from Conway when Conway wasn’t cool?), I’d like to have seen at least some of the following fine folks represented as well:
1. Dr. Jane Harris of Hendrix, expert in the study of Muslim women. 2. Dr. Sondra Gordy of UCA, distinguished researcher of “The Lost Year,” and the integration of Little Rock Central High 3. Dr. Sue Tsuda, cancer specialist at Conway CARTI. 4. Rev. Aubrietta Jones, associate pastor of Conway United Methodist Church. 5. Ann Davis, retired educator and one of the founders of Conway’s Battered Women’s Shelter. 6. Barbara Satterfield, director of the Baum Gallery. 7. Dr. Alice Hines of Hendrix College, who directs her own after-school program in Menifee. 8. Gene Hatfield, retired professor and artist of controversial yard sculptures of note. 9. Dr. Bruce Plopper, journalism professor at UALR and school activist in drug-testing issues. 10. Carole Teague, one of the initiators of Conway’s new Interfaith Clinic. 11. Jerry Whitmore, school administrator and husband of Councilwoman Sheila Whitmore. 12. Jan Guthrie, creator of The Health Resource, a company whose work has been recognized nationally, and 13. Samantha Henry, one of our reigning young beauty queens who cares far more about her platform than her tiara. This diverse and delightful group could well grace your cover and provide an even more enlightened picture of today’s Conway.
Dr. Toran Isom
Thanks to Robert McCord for publicly reprimanding Paul Greenberg concerning Bill Clinton and his splendid new library. Paul Greenberg is a notable writer and he is especially readable when he writes about his travels and the South. But it would appear to me that every writer who is hired by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette must declare their dislike of the Clintons and then vow to write demeaning things.
This continual mean and irrational effort is uncalled for, and it makes me angry.
McCord’s broad-minded defense of Bill Clinton made me feel better. I was impressed with Clinton’s maturity, seriousness of purpose for his future and his demeanor. He has grown, and after all he and Hillary have been through, is it any wonder?
Bob McCord’s defense of Bill Clinton is admirable, but he forgot that Clinton disgraced the White House by having oral sex in the Oval Office. He had his entire cabinet lie to the public regarding his affair with Monica. He could have been a great president but he blew it.
Bob McCord said exactly what I felt should have been expressed about Paul Greenberg’s editorial that appeared the Saturday after the dedication of the presidential library. I spent two days composing a response, but I never got around to writing it. McCord said it much better than I could. Although I have no hope for changing the atmosphere on the editorial page of our daily newspaper, it’s good to call attention to the pettiness occasionally.
For more than 40 years I have followed Robert McCord’s writing with sincere admiration. But I was stunned by the last sentence in his first paragraph in his Dec. 2 column: “The editor of the page, Paul Greenberg, is an excellent writer.”
Paul Greenberg is not an excellent writer. The person who agrees with his right-wing position may agree with and accept his viewpoint and still know that his writing is exceedingly poor. Never have I read anyone who uses so many words and wastes so much space to say nothing. Paul Greenberg’s writing is verbose, effusive, circumlocutory, sardonic, sanctimonious, pretentious and pompous.
Except for the one sentence in McCord’s first paragraph, the column is one of the best in the 40 years I have enjoyed his writing.
Thank you for The Observer column on the poor, helpless animals at Little Rock Animal Services. We who are involved in animal rescue (and try to pull as many of these animals from this shelter, as well as other kill shelters, as possible) live with heartache daily at seeing how many animals are thrown away and euthanized. We try to educate about how important spay/neuter is to try and get the numbers of unwanted animals down. We try to save as many precious angels as we can, as do the other animal rescue groups in Arkansas. We don’t even make a dent though because there are just too many.
Helping Hands for Little Paws
Why miss us?
Re: Phil Remley’s missing the Arkansas Times in Alabama. Mr. Remley should use some of that Ph.D. knowledge, wise up and send 39 U.S. dollars to PO Box 34010, Little Rock, AR and he can have his very own copy to read and not have to bum.
For less than 25 cups of coffee there in Birmingham, he can have 52 copies of what he enjoys. Get with the program, Mr. Remley.
Ray E. Ward
Doug Smith concluded a Words column by saying, “All of us are for choice and for life. Abortion is what we disagree on.”
I do not believe Mr. Smith understands how language is used and interpreted by the anti-abortion community. Virtually all of the people in this group make their meaning very clear. Abortion is synonymous with murder. It does not seem to matter if other words are used – partial birth, early term, late term, intact dilation and extraction, morning after pill and choice. All of these words have only one meaning – a form of murder.
Those of us who differ are wasting our time if we do not understand how the anti-abortion community uses this language. To try to explain the difference to them is as effective as talking to a fence post.
So, no, Mr. Smith, all of us are not for choice because, for a voting majority, choice equals abortion equals murder.
I saw recently that another college student had overdosed and died from alcohol. However, the writer of a letter commenting on Warwick Sabin’s column, “Our Drinking Problem,” did not talk of the deaths from alcohol nor the problems brought on society by alcohol.
So my questions, after watching a History Channel documentary on the 77-year war on marijuana that has already cost $400 billion and put 20 million Americans in jail, are: Since no one in the 5,000 years of recorded use of marijuana has ever overdosed and died from it, why is it illegal when a deadly drug like alcohol is legal?
North Little Rock
Marriage has been under fire for some time by liberal special interests — but now it’s in danger of being burned to the ground. And Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor have helped light the match. There are some things that are clearly right or wrong. By voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment, Pryor and Lincoln paved the way for a radical redefinition of the institution on which civilization has been based for 5,000 years. Now that it’s failed, there’s nothing stopping activist judges from creating not only gay marriage, but legalizing polygamy and even marriages between people and their pets.
Inspired by Bob
I’ve slowly come to realize that Bob Lancaster is my favorite writer at the Times. We think a lot alike (which is scary). Anyway, I agree with him that recent events at the polls are not the end of the world. I too, have decided to look on the bright side:
1) If past is prologue, W will probably be on vacation about 42 percent of the time, so how much damage can he do?
2) He will restore honor and integrity to the White House AND finish the job of uniting the country.
3) We’ll finally get rid of that pesky “environment” thingy altogether.
4) Stock investment decisions: much simpler now — buy the ones that surged on Nov. 3 — defense, pharmaceuticals and energy.
5) We may get beheaded, but by golly, we’re safe from married gays.
6) Having a “middle class” was overrated, anyway.
7) Invading Iran will show the world all the good things 2000-pound bombs can do.
8) W gets his instructions directly from God ... what could possibly go wrong?
Robert McCord’s oblique espousal of an otherwise popularly rejected notion of a lone Lee Oswald, reiterates Nov. 22, 1963’s, nagging heritage: The press’ lone-perpetrator-presumption preempts the more probative circumstances of Oswald’s impersonators, activities, affiliations, conflicting timelines and Mexico City visit.
Considering journalism’s credibility-damning CIA dalliances (which greatly alarmed Congress in the mid-1970s, and continue to give grist to academic grinds like the revered Columbia Journalism Review) it’s ironic that news people still flatly negate conspiracy, while consigning to cottage industry investigation of conspicuous circumstances.