Comment history

Official hopes for higher voter turnout

Scary that we elect people to public office by a majority, or more than half, but if only 20 percent of voters vote, then it only takes 11 percent (actually, anything over 10 percent) to win office.So 10 percent of the voters are electing people to office with control of taxing, spending, appointing other officials, setting valuations on property, and all the other functions of government oversight of 100 percent of the people.Why do we (Kansas) have such problems with issues such as Intelligent Design? Because the people promoting such issues don't have to convince 51 percent of the voters to vote for them, they only have to convince 10 percent (or less, if you throw in the morons who vote for a familiar name, or for the party candidate without any thought about what they are actually voting for). A famous politician stated "you can fool some of the people all the time". If the number of people who can be swayed is 10 percent or more, then evidently you can get anything and anyone elected.

August 5, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Official hopes for higher voter turnout

I find it sad that only 1 in 5 voters is expected to vote, but I totally understand it as voting seems to have exactly NO effect on political results.Don't like what the Republican lead congress is doing with Iran? Vote in a Democratic congress. Oh, wait, the difference between the two has been exactly what, again?Have a problem with Gitmo and the handling of prisoners under a Republican government? Elect a Democratic government. So far, I see no changes.Have a problem with interception of telephone calls without a warrant under the Republican lead powers? Elect a Democratic overseer who votes to make the Telcos RETROACTIVLY IMMUNE from prosecution.We are voting on lying politicians, who, when elected, have NO oversight or responsibility to the voters. All that can be done if they wind up being out to only line their pockets at the public trough is to try to vote them out next time, but then you have the obstacles of incumbency, name recognition, and those stupid people that vote Democrat/Republican because 'we have ALWAYS voted Democrat/Republican!".In a system designed to maintain the status quo, change is very difficult, and impossible if people are not interested in what is best for the nation, but only in "what's in it for me?"I am not saying or suggesting either party is better than the other I am specifically saying anyone who votes for a Republican BECAUSE the candidate is Republican is a fool, an any one who votes for a Democrat BECAUSE the candidate is a Democrat is equally a fool. We should be voting for the BEST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE, regardless of political party.Aint going to happen.

August 5, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sex-crime sentences criticized

Cut'n'paste from the story:"Shawnee County District Court Judge Matthew Dowd on Friday sentenced Harold Dean Spencer to two counts of sex with children, ages 6 and 7, prosecutors said."Real fine reporting there, AP and LJWorld - unless he really WAS sentenced to "two counts of sex with children", in which case there is something terribly wrong with the legal system.Personally, I think LJWorld is quilty of very poor reporting or editing.Supprize.

June 30, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Passing the buck

ksuone1you wrote:you k u fans and Lawrence "fathers" are the arrogant onesso get over yourself:.I guess the answer is in staying at a Holiday Inn to be smart enough to figure it out:*************You make me sad that I was a KSU student and fan.I hope you get to stay at a Holiday Inn Express so you can get a clue, as you don't seem to have one now.

May 8, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The $6,400 question: Should KU Athletics be reimbursed?

I presume the athletic department had a contract with the Holidome for the banquet facilities, so the athletic department will have to pay for their contracted obligations.I am equally sure there is a cancelation provision in their contract, and KU Athletics would have known about the fees before they canceled the event. I would be pretty sure DLI neither was a party to any contract between KUAthletics and the Holidome, nor had any decision making capacity in the decision by KU Athletics to cancel the event.If the DLI was the cause of the cancelation of the event, then they should have to cover any penalties or cancelation fees especially if they knew of the fees before hand and still forced KU Athletics to cancel anyway. If the DLI was NOT the cause of the cancelation of the event, then they should have nothing to do with paying the cancelation fees or penalties - and the athletic department is wrong/amazingly_greedy to even ask them for money for that reason.Responding to other posts at random:Does KU Athletics Department pay for police and/or fire/medical coverage for games? When I worked for a county ambulance service that provided coverage for college/university games (in a different community) we were requested by the athletic department, and our presence was billed to the athletic department.The only time I ever had to call the Fire Department, I was sent a bill for their response, even though I paid taxes in the city. Paying taxes has nothing to do with being billed for fire/medical response, I have never required police presence, so I don't know about that but I would assume there is no separate charges accessed for their coverage. However, when requesting additional coverage for an event, I do believe fees are involved for police presence.Someone posted that KU Athletics is not responsible for actions of game attendees going to/from a game or hanging around before or after a game. I have to disagree, and there are court decisions that seem to support me that seem to say that the people would not have been there if not the event, so the event is at least partially responsible for the acts of the event-goers.You (and I) may not agree, but that is the way the laws are seeming to be interpreted by the courts.It seems to me that KU Athletics are making arbitrary decisions - move the KU-MU game to KC, don't have a parade, have a parade, schedule the parade for the same day as a banquet, cancel the banquet, etc. - that they (KU Athletics) have to take responsibility for making (and for the consequences of making those decisions).

May 8, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill regulating adult businesses may be shelved

Remember, the point of politics is to LOOK like you are doing something good, there is no requirement to actually do anything good.

Politics give power, the power helps keep you in politics.

Kinzer has to LOOK like he is doing something, even if he is only ACTUALLY blowing smoke.

March 25, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

At what age do you think it's appropriate for parents to let their children drink alcohol under their supervision?

I have no opinion on when YOU can allow YOUR children to drink alcohol, and I don't think the government should pass any laws infringing on the rights of parents to make that decision.

At 12 (Until 2006 in Kansas, now set at 15. Only one I know of that is lower is California "With parental consent, there are no age limits regarding the minimum age for a couple to marry.") they can legally get married, but they can't drink a beer?

At 14 they can legally go hunting, carrying a firearm, but they can not legally drink a beer?

At 16 they can drive a car (with restrictions) but can't drink a beer?

At 18 they can legally have sex, enter into contracts, as well as fight and die for their country, but they can't drink a beer?

At 21 they can... well, they are allowed to ... uh, they can finally drink a beer?!

Why is this something the government is getting involved in?

March 24, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Proposed 'Amanda's Law' hits roadblock

>>And, as for the Viagra type ads stating if you have an erection lasting over
>>four hours, see your doctor. I know a few men who've had the problem.
>>Quote,"Those nurses did everything they could to try to make it happen.)
>>So thus, will men now take viagra and go in so as to be "worked on" by a
>>nurse when they have no partner?

I am one of those nurses, and I am a 50 YO straight male. I have had many years experience in busy Emergency Rooms, and 10 years as an Ambulance attendent before that, but I am not currently working as a nurse, so treatments may have changed.

It's called priapism, and it usually leaves the man totally unable to get an erection EVER again. Wow, doesn't THAT sound fun!

Treatments the DOCTOR (not the nurse) may try are:

Ice packs

(Oh my, fun!! It is one of the only treatments a nurse would do and, of course, no one would ever think of that at home...)

Surgical ligation: The doctor will ligate (tie off) the artery that is causing the priapism in order to restore normal blood flow.

(Can I watch? I find surgery on some schmoes privates SO HOT, especially when there is the possibility of nerve damage, infection, and massive bleeding!!)

Intracavernous injection: Used for low-flow priapism, during this treatment drugs known as alpha-agonists are injected that cause the veins to narrow reducing blood flow causing the swelling to subside.

(not so exciting, only involves multiple needles, painful injections, and waiting to see if it works. Of course, if it doesn't work, the other options still can be used. Maybe next time...)

Surgical shunt: Also used for low-flow priapism, a shunt is a passageway that is surgically inserted to divert the blood flow and allow circulation to return to normal.

(Again, surgery on some guys privates....)

Aspiration: Doctors will insert a needle and drain blood to reduce pressure and swelling.

(NOW YUR TALKIN'! Doctors, needles, pain, and lots 'n lots of BLOOD. Now THAT gets my motor runnin!!)


I just did a preview, and the sarcasm tags don't show, so for those humor impaired, this is a parody of the stereotypical "nurses" being refered to.

When someone walks into an ER with this problem, the nurse is not thinking "wow, that is sexy!" They (quite possibly a straight male) are thinking that, in addition to the puking kid in room two and the bleeding abusive drunk in three, the 5 hours yet to go on their shift, and their aching feet, now they are going to have to set up for a possible surgical procedure and assist, which will leave them even farther behind in their charting on the auto accident that caused two admissions and four dirty rooms (which are still waiting to be cleaned).

Yeah, nurses really want to jump your bones when you walk in with an erection.


you're an idiot.

March 7, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence is No. 7 on smart cities list


"Highest percentage of advanced educated people", or "city with the highest proportion of people with a college degree", or something, but you have only to read some of the postings in these comments to see that "Smartest" is not represented.

February 21, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Funeral protesters owe $11M in damages

If the "church" was the defendent, then the loonies may be protected.

While the thought of the whole group imploding and disappearing into another dimenstion is very attractive, I would assume the suit was against the "church" and NOT against the individuals. If that is the case, the "CHURCH" would implode, but the hate-mongers would not be individually liable for the money.

The church pays up everything it owns (the 26 sheets of poster board and the bog box of crayons used to write "Gods message"?) and goes away, to return reincarnated as the "WestBURG Baptist Church" - with the same "church" members and same hateful agenda, doing the same stupid, thoughtless protesting for the attention it garners.

>>"the members would continue to picket military funerals."
>>"Absolutely; don't you understand this [suing the "church"]was an act in futility?"

Now if the judgement had been against the MEMBERS of the "church"....

Picture these people being dependent on the generosity of strangers for transportation to their hate fests - especially when the stragers are aware they might be incurring a liability when volunteering any such transportstion. Somehow I don't see these people making such an attention-whore production if they were restricted to parading around their own backyards.

I would like to read the court decision to see if the judgement was against the "church" or the members - or both.

November 1, 2007 at 8:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )