Letters to the Editor: Fayette Mall curfew is a bad idea. Railbird lineup disappoints.

Nix mall curfew

The curfew on teens at the mall should be reconsidered. Many of the kids who come there on the weekends are spending money they have earned. It will hurt businesses if the after-4 p.m. weekend curfew is enforced.

I’ve been in the mall very often on Friday and Saturday nights and have seen large groups of middle-schoolers walking around. I’ve never seen any of them carrying guns, as I have adults, or doing anything that would be considered “dangerous”. The mall just gives them a safe place to meet and eat, shop, and be with friends. Also, if there is an age limit at all, it should be under age 16 at the most; if a person is considered old enough to drive and hold a job, surely he or she should be able to shop.

Maybe Fayette Mall should hire more security officers rather than dictate who comes to the mall and who doesn’t. (While they are at it, could they please hire some housekeepers to clean the filthy public bathrooms?) I love shopping at the mall, but maybe this is just another way of management saving money and shutting mouths.

Suzanne F. Jones, Lexington

Twisted priorities

I recently traveled in Connecticut and read an article in the Hartford Courant, the state’s largest newspaper, about Connecticut’s Senate Bill 1, the highest priority piece of legislation in its state Senate. I was shocked when I realized that piece of legislation dealt with capping the price people in Connecticut pay for insulin. The shock was that this highest priority bill actually would help the citizens of that state.

I compared that with Kentucky’s highest priority legislation, bills that would do absolutely nothing to help with the problems facing the citizens of Kentucky. Kentucky Senate Bill 1 deals with sanctuary cities, of which there are none in Kentucky. Kentucky Senate Bill 2 deals with voter fraud, of which there also is none. So rather than focusing on the many problems facing the citizens of Kentucky, Kentucky’s Republican Senate majority chooses to pander to the lowest common denominator of Kentucky voters.

Why would they do this? I guess because they think it will help them get reelected as they must believe that Kentucky voters don’t care about the problems facing them, but would rather vote for politicians who scare them with fictitious issues.

I would hope that we could do better.

Tanner Smith, Georgetown

Yes to legalization

My husband and I are urging people to support the legalization of medical cannabis in Kentucky. We have seen so many people suffer and die with cancer that it breaks our hearts. My own dad used it with his Parkinson’s. It helped relax his muscles and gave him a better quality of life.

This plant should have never been illegal. Who is benefiting from this? Not the sick. Only gangs, drug cartels, and pharmaceutical companies.

Law enforcement could concentrate more on murders, missing persons, protecting the schools and our children, and patrolling our borders. They could even make sure the hemp and medical cannabis companies are following procedure.

My husband suffers with Alzheimer’s.He uses CBD oil and it helps, but the THC from cannabis could help him even more as it would help him to relax and may protect his brain cells better.

I wonder why we are made to feel like we are in prison, while other states all over the United States are making cannabis legal. We truly wish the federal government would end this prohibition on cannabis, as they did with alcohol.

Everyone should research and educate themselves on this plant, and support its legalization.

Sally and Lonnie Bowman, Versailles

Need for ERPO law

The February remembrance of paramedic/firefighter Lt. Brenda Cowan should cause many more to awaken to the need for legislation to be passed that will allow guns to be removed from the home of a person who poses a threat to community and/or self.

Unfortunately, without the legal ability of courts to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order in such cases, no one, not even law enforcement can do so legally. Because this is dangerous too, it’s best to be done by law enforcement.

Yet the proposal of an ERPO law is one of the reasons some people think they need sanctuary cities to protect their Second Amendment rights.

Can you imagine the pain families like the Cowans feel when they hear people say, “If I know someone who’s too dangerous to have guns, I’ll be the first to take their gun(s) away”?

Families who’ve been there know how naive this thinking is.

Until an ERPO law like the one that may be heard in Kentucky chambers this session becomes law, how many more families will be having remembrances instead of celebrations?

The day fearmongering is replaced with common sense.

Robin Osgood, Lexington

Railbird disappoints

The Railbird Festival has thrown in a clunker. It’s gone from a grade one event to a grade three. Now don’t get me wrong, I like Jason Isbell, Maren Morris, and a handful of others. That being said, after such an all-star list of acts from the inaugural Railbird Festival and the success the event enjoyed, you would think they would try to match or surpass last year’s lineup. Instead it looks like they are trying to keep the extra purse money. A grade three is still nice, but somewhat of a letdown compared to last year.

Steve Stanley, Lexington

Flawed arguments

Regarding Jonathan Sisk’s opinion piece: I applaud his business success and appreciate that he has done well by his employees but am unconvinced by his argument that economic disparity is a media hoax. First, his graph of employee wages is difficult to interpret because the time period is unclear. Second, the impression from the graph is that workers in supervision (management?) have fared much better than all other employees, which appears to document that those at the top are receiving a disproportionate share of the profits. Third, he acknowledges his business may not be a representative sample of general economic trends but refers anecdotally to acquaintances in small business claiming similar experiences. That is, he is arguing that his business is broadly representative. This is the most important point: Economists agree on the facts that (a) there are huge disparities in income in our country and (b) those disparities have increased tremendously over the last several decades.

Political leaning often biases reporting but good reporting makes clear the bases for positions in facts. We can and should argue the credibility of sources and the interpretation of facts. What we gain by doing so is greater rationality in our reasoning and the hope of finding something that is sorely missing — common ground.

Robert Lorch, Lexington

Full of holes

In a recent opinion piece published in the Herald-Leader, local CEO Jonathan Sisk argues that concerns over economic disparities comprise a “hoax” to the benefit of politicians and the media. He presents wage data from his company, and encourages “critical thinking” to discern “objective information”. Surely, then, the CEO will not mind his work being examined critically.

First, as he admits, the CEO’s experience doesn’t qualify him as an economist. Those who have taken basic college-level economics know that data from a single firm cannot be used to address questions about the overall U.S. economy. Still, the CEO presents a “wages chart” that shows... well, it’s difficult to say. The chart (and text) lacks information necessary for a reader to absorb its meaning and consider it critically. Which years of data are included? How many individuals are represented?

Next, the CEO asserts that “politicians ... need a common enemy to position themselves as the solution”, and that, “for the media ... news is a commodity to be marketed and sold.” The CEO does not support these cynical statements with concrete details.

The CEO presents a poorly executed analysis built on the wrong kind of economic data, followed by a paragraph of baseless assertions. Don’t fall for it.

Jay Christian, Lexington

What ‘hoax’?

I was interested to read the recent article by entrepreneur Jonathan Sisk who disputes the idea that the economic boom is benefiting only the wealthy. I happen to have a different take, but the writer is entitled to his views and makes a good case within his own industry.

My problem is with his assertion that stories contradicting his belief are “the media’s assumptions,” if not an actual conspiracy to mislead the public. He goes so far as to use the word “hoax.”

But news outlets are largely just reporting data drawn from sources like the Census Bureau and the Pew Research Center.

And I say “news outlets.” There’s no such thing as “the media.” There’s a multitude of outlets, some of which lean left or right. Both sides range from tabloid trash to respected organizations in the grand tradition of objective journalism. There are sites online that monitor and evaluate them. A monumental hoax is unlikely, to say the least.

Words like “hoax” and suggestions of conspiracy are part of an approach to political discourse we’ve become accustomed to recently. But thereby we risk shifting our focus from reason and discussion to emotion (fear, anger), unsupported allegations, and mere insults.

Lela Stromenger, Lexington

Writer incorrect

An opinion piece by Jonathan Sisk in the Herald-Leader stated that economic disparity is a media hoax. This is a false statement. Economic disparity has been a fact for generations. It neither was born from nor is sustained by a media hoax. It is real. It has been documented and described countless times by research projects and in numerous books and articles. Pretending that economic disparity is a media hoax just doesn’t fit the obvious facts.

Richard Snarr, Lexington