Comment history

5 people shot after high school ball game in Chicago

It is unfortunate that, with all the obviously great minds in this room ready to point fingers and discuss symptoms, there wasn't much offered in the way of advancing and improving the situation.It is painfully obvious that there is a problem not only with the media (at least the entertainment industry) making firearms seem like toys intended for playing, but also with the fact that, in our schools, there is an uncomfortable AND DAMAGING silence concerning the topic of guns. It is odd that we have driver's education and sex education and drug warnings, yet, in a country where guns are so abundant, no one makes it mandatory to bring this very real ignorance to light.What I mean is, if the only exposure or knowledge of firearms a young person gets is from the silver screen (which makes firearms seem like toys of cool use and no responsibility, where people are killed with little significance), it would be easy to see how an ignorant gun-toting teen would think not only that this activity is acceptable, but that it is of little consequence! When a person dies in a movie, it has no relevance after the ending credits; when a person dies in real life, it is forever... and it's this last instance that likely doesn't register until it's too late.Fact is, there is entirely too little accountability in this nation as it is, just as much in the citizens as in parts of the leadership.Two thoughts: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them; and, if you only allow the government/police forces to have firearms, you are setting up a society that isn't run by its people at all... dare I say, "socialism"?Okay, okay: PERHAPS that is a little extreme. But let's face it: You're more likely to find a licensed driver that gives in to road rage than a gun owner that uses his firearm is an instrument of retribution.People hear the words "semi-automatic", and get frantic. They hear "gun", and get nervous. I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. Firearms are an issue that so many people set their minds on, pro AND con, with little thought. They make up their minds on the SYMPTOMS... not the statistics, not the causes... and, frequently, subjective hotheads like Michael Moore want to blame the Second Amendment and Charlton Heston and guns in general INSTEAD of holding accountable the schmucks that DON'T consider the consequences of their actions or the parents that fail to discipline and teach their kids or even simply secure their firearms!?!?!If it wasn't firearms, it would be something else that becomes the symptom. Why not fix the CAUSE? Which is unaccountable parents and criminals...,,, but, then, my point of view MIGHT be considered heinous, because I do, ya know, expect people to own up for their responsibilities and control themselves enough to not blame someone else for their own self-induced plight.

January 15, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bush leaves behind damaged GOP

The office of the Presidency is not, to me, an enviable one. Right now, everyone loves Obama. Will that opinion change in four years? One can’t be too sure, but, then, one shouldn’t be too surprised if it does. We’re a fickle group of voters, impatient and pessimistic, and if we don’t see changes soon, Obama’s praises may very well become jeers. Consider the last line of the Lauretta P. Burns poem “Let Go and Let God”: “What could I do? You never did let go.” The poem exemplifies the impatience of one who has put his problems into another’s (in this case, God) hands, only to insult the one from whom help was requested because the improvements weren’t made fast or satisfactorily enough. Is it too farfetched to imagine Obama’s supporters of today becoming his tormentors of tomorrow? I suppose one could blame the bureaucratic rigmarole, the red tape that almost certainly and always impedes progress.On that note, I ask the readers this: Is four years long enough for significant changes to be made? I further ask this: If George W.Bush was so appalling a President, how did he get re-elected in ’04?I fervently support change; in the midst of a recession, I implore all to remain accountable, and I invoke the leadership of this country, at all levels, to be LEADERS, putting themselves second to their obligation to those who put them in power.I’ve intentionally avoided mentioning for whom I’d voted out of this writing; the points I’ve made are just as valid, regardless. I merely regret that I was such a Johnny-come-lately to this blog.Cheers!

January 15, 2009 at 9:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bush leaves behind damaged GOP

Personally, no matter the president or party, what I’d love to see is a leadership in this country that not only passively inspires, but also demands, the personal accountability of its citizens. I believe in charity, just as I believe in random acts of kindness, just as I believe in holding the door open for a stranger or an invalid. Sure: help someone unable to help him or herself. However, if a government is expected to personally cater to the lazy, the crazed, the bitter yet otherwise CAPABLE masses, it should at the very least be emphasized that such “charity” be a means to lift the recipients up to independence, not merely keep them afloat; beyond that, reciprocation of one sort or another should be expected.Concerning the Bush Administration, love him, hate him, whatever… how much can the President really do? Congress, particularly if pushed to a vote, can veto nearly action the President proposes. (However, the powers that be have failed to amend a little piece of legislation called the War Powers Resolution. Sorry, but any doctrine that gives one man full authority to, in essence, wage war (despite the technicalities involved that spare use of the word “war”, drawing distinction between it and merely “invasion”) should have immediately been altered with numerous provisions for a more even distribution of power.) Humorously, as implied, in 2003, the US was behind entrance into Iraq… and is inactivity not the equal of compliance when considering the end result? It is not my intent to absolve W of blame… however, what of the system of checks and balances? Nay, it is my intent to spread the blame around. (An interesting article is here: http://www. slate. com/id/2195083/; happy reading! Also, consider this: “The ‘President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing’ U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities… In 1991 and 2002, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED, by law, THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ. In several instances neither the President, Congress, nor the courts have been willing to trigger the War Powers Resolution mechanism.” (http://www. fas. org/man/crs/RL32267. html))

January 15, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bush leaves behind damaged GOP

The aspect was proposed to me, pre-election, that anyone making less than $500,000 a year had no reason to vote republican, in this case, for McCain... my thoughts were: Why would anyone making more than $10,000 vote democratic? Fact of the matter is, our democratic process has only pitted one extreme against the other: the liberal democrat versus the conservative republican. The two pairs of adjectives CAN be mutually exclusive, and someone closer to the middle, no matter how disappointing to their respective parties, would probably satisfy the voting public much more. (Of course, John McCain was a pretty liberal republican, as standards go, which resulted in poor support from the republican party... Let's face it: each party wants the Extreme Alpha as THEIR champion.)CONCERNING the voting public, I have a significant dislike for the gall of anyone who questions where I laid my vote on election day. I was at work the day following the election, and was subjected to hearing some schmuck carry on why people voted for Obama, and how all those votes were misallocated, entered for the wrong reasons. Fact of the matter is, every person who is willing to vote is entitled to vote for the candidate of their choice, regardless of the esteem another may give in the reasoning. I’m not going to vote for or against a candidate based solely on a demographic (i.e. race, age, gender, religion, etc.), as I think that’s a trivial and silly measure of one’s competence… but it isn’t my place to instruct others on how to use their vote, hence, my disdain towards my colleague.I’d earlier mentioned the probability of satisfying the VOTING public with a different approach (i.e. liberal republican, conservative democrat, or a third party independent of the two main parties’ influence). I stress the word “voting” because it is ONLY those in the public that VOTE that warrant any satisfaction whatsoever, save those not yet old enough to do so.Furthermore, while on the topic of having a third party with the size or influence of the dominant two, it seems as though that would greatly exacerbate the situation: In a close election between three candidates, the winner would still only satisfy the minority of voters. Therefore, with just two candidates, as earlier suggested, the masses would be appeased by one that’s not so extreme.During this election, Obama won popular vote AND electoral college. Regardless of whom you voted for and why, it should still be noted the majority elected this man as our incoming Commander-in-Chief: No matter for whom you voted, he won, fair and square.[Read on below!]

January 15, 2009 at 9:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Outdoor workers brave bone-chilling cold

Berkman, do you work at McMurda Station?

January 15, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

School district, LHS neighbors settle lawsuit

Considering that "beobachter" was part of the name of the Nazi Party's newspaper, it makes absolute sense that THIS beobachter would be the sort to spread lies and propaganda while simultaneously bullying people with snide insults. Of course, he also has the safety of the veil provided by the internet. I have absolutely no doubt that beobachter is intelligent in some circles, but you need only look at his comments (there are plenty, I assure you) to gather the trend with which he delivers his "thoughts".Let me be frank: I make this comment only to encourage beobachter to cease his inane and subjective ridicule. He seems very knowledgeable of the matters at hand, yet his comments draw away from what could possibly be construed as some semblance of intelligence.Let me also say, I have nothing to add to this particular article; I merely thought somebody should hold this poor, foolish person accountable for his lack of insight and credibility.

January 15, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Invisibility of abortion increases stigma

Is that the same Beobachter who automatically assumed one Mr. Jonathan Thompson was drunk when there was no evidence to support such an absurd accusation? Talk about jumping to a conclusion...

October 20, 2008 at 12:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Invisibility of abortion increases stigma

By the way, AjiDeGallina: What is your stance on modern-day polygamy? Do you endorse it? Or should the man or woman be allowed to cheat on their spouse? Open marriage?I personally like the romance of two spirits coming together, and that being what is needed for happiness. (Please note that I didn't say "two OPPOSITE SEX spirits"; as stated before, I've no problem with the homosexual community.)You would probably endorse anything copulating with anything, regardless of gender, AGE, or SPECIES. So maybe I am a bigot, because I do hate pedophiles and animal molestors. I can't help it: I was taught decency growing up.Again, the only point I was making is that there must be a line somewhere, AjiDeGallina; sorry if that ruins your free-love-world-peace pipe-dream that you have with all your dropout friends at the Sunflower House.

October 19, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Invisibility of abortion increases stigma

Not at all, AjiDeGallina, not at all. I have several friends in the homosexual community, and as long as they stay in that community, I have no problem whatsoever.However, I will say that I do have so very much contempt for what we AS HUMANS do to our peers, our surroundings, and everything else which is destroyed by our hands.When you suggest that I am a bigot, you are only thinking one level deep, and from a very skewed and slapdash perspective, at that. See, I do look upon homosexuals as I look upon heterosexuals, and all of the selfish people in the world: with a great disdain. Seldom will you find anyone that is selfless, gay or straight...... yet you call me a bigot for looking at all humans the same? Could it be that YOU are the bigot for immediately jumping to the closed-minded notion that I am biased against gays, when the truth is, I judge everyone equally? I think that point requires further introspection on your part, AjiDeGallina.Now, please look at the main point I was trying to make, and that your crass and harsh ridicule has only emphasized: The majority of the human race is selfish, destructive, and unwaveringly corrupt. Less people = less evil and more resources for an Earth-bound paradise. I'm not suggesting genocide, nor am I pointing the blame towards the homosexual community. I am not here to endorse a straight-pride parade, though that certainly would be fair, wouldn't it?White, straight men have to bite their tongue frequently because they're not black, gay, or female. Where I think you lost track of any coherent thought was when I was speaking of the stigma associated to abortion, and also everything else! I say, let people make their own decisions... but where do you draw the line, AjiDeGallina?Perhaps you're right: I'm a bigot because I think 45-year-old men chasing 15-year-old girls is morally corrupt; because I don't think people should indulge in sexual acts with other species; and so forth, and so on, yadda-yadda-yadda... you're obviously a "sympathizer" of the homosexual community, which shows a prejudice of your own. Do you hate straight people for being born straight, or do you fancy yourself open-minded?Fact is, my comment at the start of this report was written with the intent to anger you, AjiDeGallina, because you had obviously written me off as a "bigot". Fact of the matter is, I have no issues AT ALL with the gay community, though I, as a straight guy, deserve to be treated with the same "permission" to exist. How dare YOU judge me so unfairly. It's probably your kind that call women who get abortions "killers". You are the self-righteous sort, right? I don't know whether you're a gay, black man or a straight Asian nun, and I wouldn't judge you on any demographic at all... except, perhaps, on your painfully low IQ.You've brought nothing but balderdash my way, AjiDeGallina.Have I sufficiently cleared the smoke from your eyes?

October 19, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Invisibility of abortion increases stigma

I agree with what RKLOG wrote, most certainly with the last statement. Retroactive abortion would certainly help rid the world of the myriad of inbred mouth-breathers out there. However, I will say that, although love is as good a reason as any to wed, it isn't the be-all-end-all. Money, comfort, lust... all are reasons (not necessarily GOOD reasons, but reasons, nonetheless) to wed. There are even those who marry because "it's just that time in my life..."Pathetic. The institution of marriage has become pathetic. Hence, further support for abortion. Can the KS legislature enact some sort of law making abortion a requirement?

October 19, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )