Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Hejira (1976). Forty years gone.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Protest of Trump Hits Sensitive Spot: His Brand” (front page, Oct. 18):

Your article on the effects of the Trump candidacy on his brand did not mention an important constituency—children. My son and his friends have all stopped using the Trump-branded attractions in Central Park. While they miss skating and riding the carousel, they are too horrified by his evil comments to patronize his businesses.

I wholeheartedly support this and hope that New York City will give serious consideration to canceling these concessions. Our children’s recreation should not profit a bigot.

LISA MOGULL

New York

Note from KBJ: Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.

I've been telling longtime blog reader John Sullivan that Donald Trump will win the presidential election in a landslide. John is pessimistic (to say the least) about Trump's chances. We've agreed that if Trump loses, John gets to call me "Baghdad Bob." If Trump wins, I get to call him "Chicken Little." As for my reasons for thinking that Trump will win, let's just say that I'm convinced that ours is a Jacksonian moment.

Here is Pat Buchanan's latest column.

Jon Butcher Axis (1983).

Here is an interesting essay about Hillary Clinton (and others).

To the Editor:

The Times has rightly taken Donald Trump to task for claims of a “rigged” election. However, there may be more to Mr. Trump’s claims than meets the eye.

A fair election requires not only adequate procedures but also a fair and balanced discussion of the issues, so that voters can make an informed choice. On the same day as your news article, one of your columnists, Charles M. Blow, called Mr. Trump a “lunatic,” while another, Paul Krugman, suggested that his “vision of America” was neo-Nazi in origin. Your Sunday Review included an article suggesting that Mr. Trump was equivalent to a lower life-form.

Is it so outlandish to claim than an election with this sort of rhetoric is not substantively, as opposed to procedurally, fair?

MICHAEL A. LIVINGSTON

Cheltenham, Pa.

Note from KBJ: The New York Times doesn't have op-ed columnists. It has smear merchants. Remember what I have been saying: To progressives, the end justifies the means. The end is power: both power to do what they want and power over others. The means include lying, cheating, stealing, using manipulative rhetoric, committing fallacies, breaking the law, corrupting the electoral process, and smearing. Don't think for a moment that these means are being employed only because the Republican candidate is Donald Trump. They were used against George W. Bush (2000 and 2004), John McCain (2008), and Mitt Romney (2012), and they would have been used against Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, or any other Republican candidate.