In regards to the letter by Richard T. Cantwell, Sr. of Saugerties that appeared in the December 1 issue of the Shawangunk Journal: two things.

First, there is a difference between opinion and fact. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, opinion is "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter." On the other hand, a fact,again according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "the quality of being actual." I was not able to find a source that stated that "opinion" and "fact" are synonyms.

Yet, Mr. Cantwell, in his letter, carelessly treats them as synonyms when he states "Obama (whom he pointedly identifies as a black president) took care of the black people." Mr. Cantwell, even our President-elect denied that in his campaign; he thought Obama had done nothing for the black community. Either you have credible facts from a disinterested and unbiased source to substantiate your words, or you admit that it is merely your opinion and nothing more. You are entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to present real facts, but you are not entitled to represent opinions as facts.

Second, sir, why is it necessary to continue to see other people primarily in terms of the color of their skin, their gender, their gender orientation or the religion they profess? Why do you see a black president as taking care of black people and a white president as taking care of white people? Is this the lens through which you see the world? Either them or us? Why not look at them as individuals each with special, if not unique, talents and capabilities and work to find in-common solutions that are best for all rather than to exclude anyone? Why do you insist that differences matter so much? Why are the kinds of differences on which you choose to focus the ones that matter most?

My grandmother once told me not to worry about a bully who had been badgering me in school. To paraphrase her, she said that this bully was so obsessed with picking me out of the class on characteristics that he, himself, chose to prove my lack of worth and my inferiority not because his opinion was based upon fact but because deep down he was afraid that he was not as worthy as or likely to be as successful as I. Otherwise, if I had been so inferior or unworthy, he would have simply ignored me.

I am reminded of a line from the 1977 film "Saturday Night Fever" where John Travolta's character, Tony Manero, recognizes that an Hispanic dancer who lost a dance contest to Tony due to bigoted judges was actually better than he. Tony said, "Everybody has got to dump on someone."

Sad but apparently, for some people, true. Of what personal inadequacies are these people really afraid?

Richard Hartz
Cragsmoor

It is with total dismay that I inform your readers about the New Paltz Central School District's decision to consider changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples' Day. Such a change would be a denigration of America's heritage. When Columbus landed in the Caribbean in 1492, it was a true discovery of a New World that Europeans had never ever seen before. That landing stimulated further curiosity, exploration, settlement and colonization. Soon a mass migration of peoples from the Old World saw new hope and opportunity to improve their lives, bringing their dreams, ideals and culture, which eventually created the greatest country on the face of this earth. A whole new hemisphere was developed and prospered, and two worlds were joined. The history of the western hemisphere then begins with the Columbian contact and represents the dawn of our American heritage! Such a phenomenon deserves a holiday in Columbus' name and must therefore remain on the school district's calendar as is.

For the school district to make this change will keep their students and posterity in the dark about the aforementioned details, and I am sure New Paltz taxpayers would not want that deficiency to occur for their charges. It would be an educational travesty!

We at the Commission for Social Justice (CSJ) of the Order Sons of Italy in America (OSIA) suggest that Indigenous Peoples' Day should appear on a separate day from Columbus Day, particularly the Friday after Thanksgiving. It's a perfect time to say "thank you" to our Native Americans for enabling the early New England colonists to survive their inchoate Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21 in an unfamiliar environment. If the district really believes in true cultural sensitivity and tolerance, the school board members should do it by inclusion and addition, not by subtraction or substitution.

Lou Gallo
Long Island

I've been taking an inventory of how our lives might have been different if Al Gore had won the presidency instead of George W. Bush. It's on my mind because Al Gore was the last presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election.

Al was ahead by more than 500,000 votes. Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by 2 million and counting. What might have been different if Gore had been president?

I don't think there is any doubt that we would NOT have gone to war in Iraq. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people who were killed in that war and as a direct result of that war would be alive.

The destabilization of the Middle East would not have happened. Would we have ISIS today? Would we even know that word? Even "9/11" might never have happened.

President Gore, having had the experience of being vice president for eight years, after having been warned by intelligence of the threat (as Bush was), might have actually acted on the intelligence! The Patriot Act, torture at the hands of Americans that includes Cheney's beloved waterboarding, all the annihilations of human rights that happened during the Bush/Cheney regime would not have happened. People around the world might not hate us so much.

We would not have spent $2 trillion on the Iraq war and could have instead used $2 trillion to grow our economy, repair our infrastructure and stay in the Clinton/Gore surplus. Between being $2 trillion richer and the fact that Al Gore would certainly have not have instituted the Bush tax cuts to benefit the rich, the 2008 economic crash may well not have happened. The victims of Hurricane Katrina would have gotten a lot more help a whole hell of a lot sooner.

Famous for his dedication to the environment, Gore would have left our planet a lot healthier today. Surely we would be eons further along on the path of alternative energy, not to mention all the jobs created on that path. Many more people would be driving electric cars and using solar panels. No one would be saying that climate change is just a theory.

I could say "if only" forever. If only the popular-vote president had won. If only.

Gore won the Nobel Prize. We won nothing.

More than 2 million MORE Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Since November 8, I keep hearing the phrase "America has spoken," which is code for "shut up and get over it!"

Yes, the voters have spoken, but you know what? We lost the election anyway. No one likes to lose, but losing when you won is a painful double whammy. I'm opening my ledger to start a new inventory of what happens when the winners lose in this country. I'll keep you posted.

Rossi
New York City

It's not uncommon to have a rich president, however, our next leader will be the richest of all at approximately $2.9 billion. That's not anywhere near really rich, like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, or Warren Buffett, but lots more than any former presidents. Our first President, George Washington's worth now would be estimated at about $525 million; Thomas Jefferson about $212 million, (not including his slaves); Theodore Roosevelt $125 million; Andrew Jackson $119 million; JFK $100 million; and down to G.W. Bush, worth only about $20 million.

After googling this information, I realized for the first time that most of our presidents were born rich and none were born poor or even what we now call middle class (except perhaps Bill Clinton, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Abe Lincoln). It looks like Bernie Sanders might have been the first clearly of that category, had he won.

Although some former presidents knew something about businesses and money, the President Elect is the first one that has financial investments all around the planet. That includes Canada, the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, India, China, Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, and more. Our future president has more money, and more investments, all over the world than any president had in the past.

I believe that when the constitution was designed, there was no such thing as investments around the world, or even a stock market, or convenient air travel (even without bars and beds).

So.... if there is nothing in the constitution regarding this issue, I guess it's because no president has ever had so many investments around the world. Maybe it's time for Congress to write some amendment that requires candidates to give up their investments outside the U.S. in order to show their passion for our country by divesting themselves of their worldwide investments before becoming a candidate. We can raise their salaries because it's only $400,000 and has stayed there since 2001.

It's a hard job and I think it's worth more than that.

Jill Paperno
Glenford

The framers of the US Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state's favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its US senators (always two) plus the number of its US representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each state's population as determined in the Census).

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the state becomes that state's electors so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a state wins all the electors of that state.

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state. This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received (in each state) times the number of electoral votes (in each state) results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Joe Bialek
Cleveland

I recently heard our Governor Cuomo intends to use our taxpayer money to set up a "Defense Fund" for illegal so-called immigrants. Remember, these folks broke into our country, no matter what their purpose was, they violated the laws of our United States. Maybe our governor should take a tour around NYS and check out our roads and infrastructure. Maybe our Legislature should consider spending the Gas Tax money on its intended purpose, to repair our roads and not use it for whatever pet project tickles their fancy.

We have U.S. citizens who are homeless, veterans who served our country, in need of help, seniors who can't make ends meet, because of our high taxes and Gov. Cuomo wants to use our money to defend non-citizen lawbreakers.

Joseph L. Sexton
Monroe