DougCounty (Ken Lassman)


Comment history

Letter: Climate strategy

William, if you check your history of climate theory, you will find out indeed that there was some indication that there MIGHT be a possibility of a cooling that could tip toward an ice age, but the consensus was that we simply didn't have a good grasp of the planet's energy balance and we needed to start collecting more data. The congress responded by financing this data collection, which quickly showed that the OPPOSITE was happening, i.e. that the planet was warming, not cooling. The evidence has continued to accumulate to this effect ever since, and Mr. Burton's version of this is all revisionist history promulgated by the denialist FUD industry.

July 6, 2015 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Au contraire, Scott: check out which projections have been more accurate--the contrarians or the mainstream climatological community:

If you want similar rebuttals on the other topics you exaggerated wildly about, just let me know--I'll be happy to provide them.

July 4, 2015 at 5:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Voting appeal

This separate-but-unequal dual tier voting system has got to be so attractive to businesses we are trying to have to come to Kansas. Kobach has created a Salem Witch trial protocol for evaluating prospective businesses--you remember how if the person drowned, then they were not a witch, but if they floated, they were a witch and needed to be burned at the stake? Well any business that looks at this crazy system and runs away is the type of business that I'd want to have in our state, whereas it they are still interested in moving here, ya gotta wonder about who they represent.

June 30, 2015 at 6:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Supreme Court declines to hear Kobach appeal on proof of citizenship

Any business who sees that we have a two tier form of voting and STILL wants to move here is not a business that I'd want to have in our state. Conversely, any business which runs for the door once it finds out about Kobach's plan is the kind of business I'd love to have here. Congratulations, Mr. Secretary of State: you've created the Salem Witch trial method for evaluating businesses! You know, if the suspect drowns, she wasn't a witch, but if she floats, she is a witch and must be burned at the stake.

June 29, 2015 at 10:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence gay couples ecstatic over U.S. Supreme Court ruling

You're the one who gave the impression that the vote somehow represented the will of Kansans by bringing up the 70%, which is really only 25%, which is really only documenting the will of 15% of all Kansans. Furthermore, I think it's reasonable to assume that an even higher percentage of all Kansans would support the Constitution of the US over our state's constitution when there is a conflict. Since the Supreme Court of the US has determined that the US Constitution protects same sex marriages, there is no reason to think Kansans would not comply with that determination even if they didn't like it..

June 27, 2015 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence restaurant selected for national breakfast test; questions emerge about what you can store in your yard; cell tower awaiting approval

If they did live next door to you, Clara, they'd no doubt share some of their abundant produce with you, offer to teach you how to plant your own, discuss the intricacies of fruit tree pruning or duck raising, invite you to a neighborhood event, etc. Most of their neighbors see the Cosmic Beauty School as an asset to, not a drag on the neighborhood.

June 27, 2015 at 7:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence gay couples ecstatic over U.S. Supreme Court ruling

Looking a little closer, there were around 1.69 million registered voters in 2005, so the 417,675 voters who voted for the amendment represent a whopping 24.7% of eligible voters for that year. And the number of people living in Kansas in 2005 was around 2.72 million people. So you really think that 15.3% of Kansans should override the ruling of the US Supreme Court and the 10th Circuit ruling too, for that matter?

June 27, 2015 at 7:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence restaurant selected for national breakfast test; questions emerge about what you can store in your yard; cell tower awaiting approval

Piles of wood are fire hazards??? Does that mean that it's illegal to stack firewood outside? Or inside for that matter??? And aren't houses themselves fire hazards, full of electrical wiring, furnaces and natural gas sources all mixed together?

And brick piles make good rodent habitat? I would say that houses make much better habitat for rodents, as do storm sewers, dog pens with food dishes, and don't forget automobiles.

Such a slippery slope. It would be one thing if we're talking about a meth lab or a structural hazard that might hurt the inhabitants, but this sure seems to be based on a false sense of aesthetic conformity and ignorance about what an edible landscape is all about, to say nothing about sustainability.

June 26, 2015 at 6:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback, Kansas legislators criticize Obamacare ruling

To quote the movie "Raising Arizona," the whole supreme court challenge to the ACA based on finding 4 words in a 900 page piece of legislation has been a fool's paradise. Never in the entire legislative process leading up to its passage was there ever a question about whether states would be given a federal subsidy if they didn't create their own insurance market, and supreme court justice Roberts clearly set the record straight by reminding people of that in this sensible court decision.

If the group of legislators disliking the ACA would have spent time reforming some of the less well designed portions of the law, we would have an even better functioning health care insurance system than we have in the current version. At this point, returning to the effort to repeal the law once again instead of reforming it would be a clear sign of legislative insanity. of furthering a dysfunctional legislative process that has come to characterize our national politic of recent years. I hope folks tell their legislators just that!

June 26, 2015 at 6:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Columnist has questions for Clinton

Is that all you've got, George? I can see your lips curl into a sneer as I read this column. How much longer do we have to wait for the Journal World to wake up and realize that Mr. Will's effectiveness as a columnist is long gone and switch him out with someone else? My vote is for one of the Brooks: David from the New York Times, or Arthur C from the American Enterprise Institute. Both are much more articulate and influential alternatives for moderate conservatives, which is presumably the target audience you're trying to please by keeping old George around.

June 25, 2015 at 6:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )