Learn to use language
I want to say something that may rile some readers, and it has nothing to do with politics, race, religion, or same-sex marriage. It is about the use or misuse of the English language.
Texting is probably the worst use I have ever seen. The usage of letters and numbers for words is outrageous. Young people do not know how to spell a lot of common words or how to use a dictionary. Many of them cannot write an essay or theme paper without any errors.
Another thing that drives me up the wall is when I hear a conversation that goes something like this: “I came over to your house, right, but you were not there, right, so I left, right, and then I went back home, right.”
Another example: “I was talking to Bill, and he goes, ‘What are you doing tonight?’ And I go, ‘I’m going to the game,’ and he goes, ‘Can I ride with you?’ And I go, ‘yes, you can.’”
Another example: “I went to the bank, you know what I’m saying? And I cashed my check, you know what I’m saying? I paid some bills, you know what I’m saying? I drove back home, you know what I’m saying?”
When someone says “right,” I am tempted to say “left” or “wrong.” When they say “You know what I’m saying,” I want to say, “I have no idea because most of what you said was, you know what I’m saying.”
Has this kind of language usage irritated anyone else?
MILTON MURRAY
McNeil
Let’s return the favor
To Tom Cotton and anyone else who wishes to restrict the right of women to personal, private medical procedures—there is a practical solution to all unwanted pregnancy: Perform a minimally invasive vasectomy on all male children at birth, and also apply that to all adult males residing in the United States. This procedure can be reversed when the male is ready to become a father, or better yet, merely harvest the sperm and inseminate his wife. That would end all unwanted pregnancies, whether from consensual coitus or that resulting from rape, incest, etc.
There would be no need for abortion except in extreme circumstances, such as to save the mother’s life or that the fetus was not viable for whatever medical reason—also not the concern of others.
The program would easily be funded with money that is now spent on aid to unwed mothers, including their medical costs and aid to fatherless children.
Since many men feel perfectly okay with dictating control over the bodies of women, it’s time the women returned the favor. Mandatory vasectomies now!
STEPHANIE POVEY
Mena
Does not end at birth
I am anti-abortion, pro-choice and pro-life all at the same time.
In the abstract, abortion is not a good choice. Unfortunately, the decision to abort is never made in an abstract situation. Abortions are almost always the result of an unwanted pregnancy. It would be a better world if there were no unwanted pregnancies and therefore no abortions. Unfortunately, when an unwanted pregnancy has already occurred, a decision cannot be avoided. The choice between keeping the child, placing it for adoption and aborting must be left to the individual. That is a right that should never be surrendered to the government.
Being pro-life carries a responsibility that does not end at birth. It must also include health care, food, education and a stable, safe environment in which a child can grow to become a productive citizen.
LEN WHITE
Fayetteville
Maybe I missed that
Growing up in my family, I was taught to be politically correct. I was taught never to offend anyone. We didn’t say mean things about other races and cultures. We were to be polite and kind to others. Only we didn’t know we were being politically correct. We called it being a Christian.
Trump and his Christian followers must have read something in the Bible I missed. Maybe it was in Two Corinthians.
SALLY MAYS
Roland
Did read Constitution
I write in response to the letter from Rosalind Creed; in her letter she recommends Asa Hutchinson, John Boozman, and Tom Cotton re-read our Constitution. I hope she will not be offended that I took her advice and also took a look, especially at the First Amendment, as Ms. Creed asked.
Ms. Creed’s letter asserted our brilliant founders, those fellows who sanctioned slavery, chose to separate church and state. I read in the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” Let me assure Ms. Creed that Congress has made no such law and that our senators are not contemplating the passage of such a law. I find no other passage in the Constitution addressing the issue of religion.
Amendment 10 states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” As separation of church and state is not addressed in the Constitution, and abortion is certainly not mentioned, I believe a pure and true reading of the Constitution would indicate it is up to the individual states to legislate such matters.
In the same issue of the newspaper, Tom Cotton lays out his case for just such action at the state level and proper application of federal law to redress the grievances of the people (First Amendment).
If there is a passage in the Constitution I have overlooked, I ask Ms. Creed to please identify it.
ROBERT LAIRD
Magnolia