Today's Paper Obits Mugshots Sports Coronavirus Updates Time Tour Classifieds Jobs HER Magazine Crime Contact us Newsletters
ADVERTISEMENT

Fact-checking stats

Dear editor:

In reference to the letter recently published from Paula Woodman titled "What's going on?"

I am not writing to agree nor disagree with her views. What I want to do is correct her statistics regarding the population of the city of Chicago.

She states that when she left (whenever), the population was over 8 million. Also, that at "last check a couple of years ago, it was 2.4 million."

Here are the correct figures as reported by governmental agencies: The Chicago Metro Area population as of last month was 8,865,000. This encompasses the ring stretching around the southern tip of Lake Michigan from Milwaukee, Wisc., to Gary, Ind. The number of residents living within the city limits as of 2019 was 2,700,000.

As the former inspector general for the Chicago Housing Authority, it was incumbent upon me and my office to periodically verify populations. This info went to various governmental agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I still keep an active eye on these statistics.

Hank Nowak

Hot Springs

Fact-checking masks

Dear editor:

In response to the opinion offered by Gloria Marihart, let us offer the following: We didn't know that she knows more about infectious diseases than the most prominent doctors and scientists regarding the biggest crisis affecting our society today.

Also, it appears you do not check facts your writers submit in their letters. Examples follow: The Helsinki Accords were an agreement to reduce tension between the Soviet Union and the West 50 years ago. Masks?

The Nuremburg Agreement stipulates there must be voluntary consent for medical experimentation, i.e., medical exams, operations, etc. Masks?

The Magna Carta states that everyone is subject to law, even the king! Masks?

So, if our governor mandates mask-wearing, finally, so be it.

We will see that Gloria complies and hit her with any and all applicable fines and fees for noncompliance!

Joe and Cynthia Andrews

Hot Springs

What perks?

Dear editor:

Judy Ladd must have read, or interpreted, a recent letter I had written incorrectly. Judy is under the false impression I wanted to privatize the postal service. The attempt to make the postal service compete with public companies was started back in the '70s. The postal service was in direct competition for package volume which, at the time, was delivered more efficiently by United Parcel Service. The same was true of FedEx in the '80s. Since the postal service has a monopoly over stamps and mailboxes, government, justifiably, felt they must compete in the area where they overlap private companies. For years, government perks allowed them to move their monopoly revenues into their competitive parcel business to cover losses so they could continue to compete and reduce volume to the competition.

I found this little tidbit on the Internet: "The Post Office can borrow up to $15 billion dollars from the government at low interest rates. The postal service is exempt from state and local sales, income, and property taxes. They are exempt from parking tickets and vehicle fees. It pays federal corporate income taxes on its earnings from competitive products, but those taxes are circulated back to the U.S.P.S. It is immune from a range of civil actions and has the power of imminent domain. It has government regulatory power which it can use to impede competition." This is not competition! Why not make them provide for their employees' pensions with all they are saving from these government perks not afforded to their competition? Can you imagine how well FedEx and UPS could return profits to their shareowners if they were exempt from all of these added costs?

Is it any wonder that competitors are a little dismayed anytime the government steps in and bails out a business where they cannot compete? "We the People" deserve competition in order to control costs. If that is a political idea only, I know I am on the right side. It seems when honesty, truth, life, competition, justice, religion, individual rights, and equality are in question, the Republicans are on the right side. They have been throughout history. Ex: Abraham Lincoln. If recent events and history showing "change" needs to come through racism, anarchy, theft, destruction and lies, I would have made my point as a Democrat. Ex: Nancy Pelosi. If by disagreeing with the means by which your party achieves change is being political, call me guilty. Remember, "good" will only be pushed so far before the real change erupts.

Edward K. Cherry

Hot Springs

Sponsor Content

Comments

COMMENTS - It looks like you're using Internet Explorer, which isn't compatible with our commenting system. You can join the discussion by using another browser, like Firefox or Google Chrome.
It looks like you're using Microsoft Edge. Our commenting system is more compatible with Firefox and Google Chrome.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT