Eric Haubert | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Eric Haubert 
Member since Sep 9, 2013

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “Pity the plutocrats

I recently got two letters printed in the Massillon Independent, which are along the same lines as this one. The most recent is from April 23:

Letter to the editor: Adam Smith and Ayn Rand offer different views on big business…

I started thinking about writing this letter after I read the Gene Lyons column about Paul Ryan and Jonathan Swift. When I had it about completed, I wasn't sure if I should send it. I didn't know if anyone else would be talking about these things. But then I saw the Gene Lyons column about the Koch Brothers and Tom Perkins, and I decided that it was indeed the correct time to go ahead with it.*

I was hoping to give quotations from both Adam Smith and Ayn Rand, but then I saw that there really wasn't room, given only 300 words. So, I wanted to at least point out the main sections of each book, and then others can go directly to the source:

The key section of “Atlas Shrugged” is called Part III, (3), Chapter VII, (7), “This is John Galt Speaking.”

The key section of "Wealth of Nations" is called Book I, (1), Chapter VIII, (8), "Of the Wages of Labour," (using the British spelling). This book is in the public domain, and the complete text can be easily found on the Internet."…
See also:

February 17, 2014

Republicans redefine slavery by reversing roles…
March 20, 2014…

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Eric Haubert on 04/28/2014 at 2:38 AM

Re: “Measuring kids

It seems that just about every President of the United States, and just about every successful business person, BELIEVES that more than half can be in the upper half, (at the same time). What does that say about the intelligence of "smart" people, generally?"*
Re: "No single exam, given on a single day," she complains "should determine anyone's fate."*

Isn't it possible to retake the exam? It certainly should be possible. If the belief is that "scores on the SAT" . . . "are stable across time, and not easily increased through training, coaching or practice," then the system loses nothing by letting people study and retake the test at some later time.*

Here are the links to my letter that was printed two years ago:
Posted Jul. 18, 2012 @ 12:01 am
Updated Jul 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM

"Democrats know that some people always will need help"…

(All old comments have been removed by the website).*


Posted Jul. 19, 2012 @ 12:01 am
Updated Jul 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM

"Letter to the Editor: It's absurd to vote Republican"*…

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Eric Haubert on 03/18/2014 at 12:02 AM

Re: “Measuring kids

I especially liked this line:

"Regardless of how carefully the College Board revises the exam, only one percent can be squeezed into the 99th percentile."*

This reminds me of a letter I got printed about two years ago:
"Democrats accept the reality of the distribution curve, meaning that half of the people will always be below average. These are not always the same people, but it is always the same distribution. No matter how many people move up through ability, personal ambition or social mobility, there will always be a bottom half. The percentage of people below the middle line will always be 50 percent."*

"Republicans believe that if everyone at the bottom just tried harder and really applied themselves, most people could be in the upper half of the population. As a voter, you need to think about that. Do you really believe that most people could work their way into the upper half of the distribution curve?"*

"If you can see the absurdity of the Republican position, then you should also see the absurdity of voting Republican."*

There is a strong belief that we could have a higher percentage of the population squeezed into a fixed percentage of the distribution. This is a "stubbornly persistent illusion," and I'm not sure it is confined to Republicans. But it is certainly a stumblingblock when it comes to solving societal problems.*

I'd like to see some data on how many people apply for jobs at various places, compared to how many actually get hired. The concept of unemployment always carries with it the belief that, if the unemployed just tried hard enough, then enough good jobs for everyone would just magically appear out of nowhere.*

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Eric Haubert on 03/17/2014 at 11:46 PM

Re: “Not buying Snowden as savior

I agree completely with this column.*

It was not until a week later that it was printed in our local newspaper, and then the paper itself somehow got lost in our front yard.*

I was wanting to write something on this subject myself, but I just didn't get around to it yet.*

One thing of critical importance here: WHY DIDN'T THE NSA STOP SNOWDEN FROM DEFECTING? I mean, if he can fool THEM, how formidable can they be? I'd like to hear his explanation of how he got away from them, when they were reading his mind and tracking his every move.*

Also, this "civil libertarian" seems to be more of a Rand Paul libertarian. He must have been a Republican to get the job in the first place. They don't give high security jobs to libertarian DEMOCRATS, do they? I keep hearing that Barack Obama has some "splainin" to do. But of course, Barack Obama did not create the NSA. He didn't "build that."*

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Eric Haubert on 01/15/2014 at 9:43 PM

Re: “Race-baiting

Suggest re-watching the video.*

"Now, I'll be held in contempt if I drop this. So I'm not going to do some 'drama,' and drop it on the floor, and watch it roll around."*

He sets it down on the floor in such a way that it makes a quite loud and clearly audible THUD!!! Apparently, O'Mara hadn't planned ahead enough to have cushions on the floor, eh? Actually, it makes TWO rumbling thud noises as he drops it. Then, for emphasis, he pats it twice with his hands.*

Are you taking him at his word? That is the whole point here. Since Zimmerman was found "not guilty," then whatever O'Mara said must be "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," right?*

Actually, O'Mara is LYING. And you would have to be willfully blind and deaf not to notice that. He carries a piece of cement, which is as large as he can realistically carry. And he drops it on the floor AS LOUDLY AS HE CAN GET AWAY WITH in that courtroom.*

When he says, "I'll be held in contempt if I drop this," what he means is: "I will drop this as loudly as I possibly can, without being held in contempt." So your claim is that, "If he wasn't held in contempt, then he didn't drop it?" The most charitable thing I could call that conclusion is "naive." He may as well have said, "I'll be struck by lightning, if I tell a lie here. I didn't get struck by lightning? Then it must be true!"*

When he says, "I'm not going to do some 'drama,' what he means is: I AM going to do some drama. When he says, "Watch it roll around." . . . You tell me. How does a not-at-all round chunk of cement "roll around?" So what he means is: "If the cement does not roll around, then 'innocent' my client must be found."*

O'Mara did, in fact, DROP the cement on the floor. He expected the jury to get the point by hearing the thud, as it hit the floor. Does he have to actually break a hole in the floor, in order for it to be "dropped?"*

You say O'Mara didn't drop it "as though onto Zimmerman — from a great and death-dealing height?" Well, you know, there never was a chunk of concrete involved in the real case. Trayvon Martin was not carrying a chunk of concrete. Trayvon Martin did NOT drop a large chunk of cement onto George Zimmerman's head, from any height whatsoever. Because there WAS NO chunk of concrete in his arms to begin with.*

It is fundamentally dishonest to criticize a mere DESCRIPTION of O'Mara's courtroom antics, as if O'Mara's own pretense in the court doesn't deserve criticism. We should ALL hold O'Mara in contempt, for the way he misrepresented the events of that night. And yet, YOU reserve your contempt for anyone who would POINT OUT O'Mara's fraud.*

Somehow, you long ago decided that "Trayvon Martin was MORE GUILTY than George Zimmerman," and you have stuck to that position. If you want to be a "useful idiot for racist propaganda," then I guess more and more people will see it, over time, as you keep up the same line of argument. But don't give us that BS about how "MSNBC is just as bad as FOX," and you are the one true guiding light of racial harmony.*

If you want to talk about black crime, then talk about black crime. But DON'T bring the Martin/Zimmerman case into the discussion, because that only discredits whatever else you have to say about it.*

P.S. Here is a new video I just saw. And you'll have to respect it, because it DOESN'T come from that dreaded MSNBC!*

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Eric Haubert on 09/10/2013 at 2:35 AM

Re: “Race-baiting

Gene Lyons really needs to stop talking about Trayvon Martin. These "Moderates In Name Only'' always have to exaggerate the negatives on the liberal side, to show a "false equivalence." The Trayvon Martin controversy is not about crime. The issue is law enforcement and the courts. Zimmerman lawyer O'Mara carried "a huge chunk of concrete." Gene Lyons asks: "Would it shock you to learn that this lurid episode never happened?" What exactly is it that "never happened?" Trayvon Martin never carried a chunk of concrete? Or O'Mara never suggested he'd like to drop it to show how heavy it is?*

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Eric Haubert on 09/09/2013 at 1:49 PM


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation