LTCUSARet (Eric Dawson)

Follow

Comment history

Extra steps to eat: In Lawrence, nearly 18,000 live in federally designated 'food desert'

Hi, Sara. Citing Rae's question and following your response, this story has proven to be a classic example of how valid data can be misused (intentionally or not) to demonstrate a problem where one does not exist, to the detriment of those that are actually in the presented situation. I examined the details for the census tract cited at the USDA map you noted. Less than 1.6% of the households in that tract (34 of 2142) that are more than 1/2 mile from the store do not have a vehicle, and from a simple Google map check, all households in that tract are less than 2 miles from the Dillons in question. Calling that tract a food desert under those circumstances is ridiculous and weakens the argument being made for true food deserts (i.e., all claims made based on the data presented now become suspect). NE Lawrence across the river is a true food desert these days. As one who used to live there, still remembers shopping at the Rusty's IGA that was there, and still has family living in that part of town, I can tell you that a grocery store is missed there, but the location is simply not an economically viable one (as many businesses of many kinds have discovered since I first arrived in Lawrence 34 years ago). So what should be done to address the issue? Volunteer help, bus routes, etc.?
Bottom line -- If you had mentioned in your story the shortcomings of the criteria used to label a census tract a "food desert", fewer critical readers would have been inclined to discount the data -- and the issue -- being presented.

January 19, 2014 at 10:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Rock Chalk Park development, northeast of the intersection of the South Lawrence Trafficway and

This is front page in today's print edition of the LJW. Why is it buried here? Had to "search" for it in order to be able to send the link to distant friends.

August 7, 2013 at 11:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Prayer list targets "dark spiritual areas" of Kansas, including Lawrence

Guess it depends on which circles are under discussion and how they define "cult".

Top 3 definitions of "cult" from M-W.com:
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents

Most people hear the word cult and think definition 3. I submit to you that atheists regard Christianity as such, as do Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus -- basically everyone who does not believe in Christianity, aka the majority of the world.

February 13, 2013 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Strauss, Mayo commit to NW Missouri St. football

Best of luck to both young men! I, too, would have liked to see what Brad could have done at KU. C'est la vie!

January 23, 2013 at 12:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Have you or a family member served in the military?

No, it's not odd at all, especially since noncombatants are not the target of *our* military.

It's not a nice world out there, and someone has to do what needs to be done when ordered by our leaders to do so. Every effort is made to not inflict harm on the innocent. Sometimes, unfortunately, it happens. Sometimes, as in civilian life, there are criminal acts committed by soldiers. As in civilian life, they are the exception, not the rule, and they eventually pay for their crimes.

Clearly you are not one of those willing to serve, and that is your choice. I am glad that you -- and Fred Reed -- appreciate and exercise the rights afforded all citizens by the Constitution that the men and women of the Army -- and all the Uniformed Services -- vow to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

But don't even begin to pretend you have a clue from which to make a valid, cogent comment on this subject. Your words inform us otherwise.

November 28, 2011 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Booths purchase original Naismith basketball rules at auction for more than $4 million

Really? You really don't get it? Did you even read the article, or just throw your hands up in disgust after just the first few lines? As others have noted, the article reports that the proceeds go to the Naismith Foundation charity.* Would you be griping if they had made a direct donation to the Naismith Foundation? No. (At least I hope not.) This way the Booths made their donation and got a piece of Naismith history for the KU Athletics archives. Geez.

*[excerpt]
James Naismith’s grandson, Ian Naismith, told the Associated Press in an October interview that the family decided to put the rules on the auction block and to give the money to the Naismith charity that promotes sportsmanship and provides services to underprivileged children.

December 11, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Free throws didn't cost Kansas the 2003 NCAA championship: A convincing argument

Jesse -- Bowers is using his stats incorrectly. After reviewing the ESPN play-by-play record of the game, this becomes clear.

First, KU's 1st half FT shooting was close to their season average (8-13, 61% vs 65% for the season), the really horrid FT shooting didn't happen until the second half. (Nick was 2-3 in the first, roughly his 64% season average)

Looking just at the second half as KU was trying to comeback, KU only made one of the three "putbacks" in the second half. Furthermore, SU had 6 rebounds of missed KU FTs in the second half. Bowers has arbitrarily assumed that the made FTs would be of misses KU rebounded, when they could be of misses SU rebounded, meaning the made KU FTs would not necessarily be offset by stickbacks made of misses.

Third, in the last 17minutes of the game, the only players SU fouled that went to the line were Collison and Graves, who were a combined 3-14 (21%) from the line in the 2nd half (5-17, 29% for the game). 9 SU fouls sent Collison (4) and Graves (5) to the line in that time, no one else. They and Langford were the only Hawks consistently hitting their shots, and they were the worst FT shooters, so it was better to foul them to stop their shot if needed, and SU did.

By my figuring, if those two had just hit FTs in the second half at Jeff's 57.6% average instead of the 21% they actually made , even being conservative and giving back the 2 points on the one basket off a missed FT, KU still would have had 4 more points (new total 8 pts - 3 points actually made + 1 more for one of the 1&1s - 2 for the stickback lost), enough for the win.

I have a more detailed analysis, but it's too long for here. I can be reached at ericpdawson@kualumni.org if you're interested.

February 25, 2010 at 5:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kentucky basketball victories tainted

Mr. Mayer, I have two questions if you would be so kind as to reply, either here or via email.

First, given your tenure and long association with KU Sports reporting, did you personally know Rupp?

Second, I would agree with your article if you limited the comparison to UK (4 major infractions) to UNC (1 major infraction). But given that KU (5) has had more major infractions than UK (4) -- or any other major program, for that matter -- it is hard to support including KU in the comparison. I will grant that overall one can argue that KU's major infractions weren't qualitatively as bad as UK's, but even if that is so, they are still major infractions, and a lot of them. In comparison, UCLA has 3, while UNC, Duke and Indiana all have just 1. Given these facts, I would be interested in knowing how you justify including KU in the comparison, as I would think some of KU's wins must also be considered "stained".

In closing I would note that while UNC has done well in this arena, it is somewhat ironic/problematic to me that KU's last two major infractions were incurred during the terms of KU's two UNC alum coaches.

Thank you.

ericpdawson@kualumni.org
KU 1982 (b), 1984 (g)

February 16, 2010 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, KU; UT No. 1

If someone is going to express an opinion, it should at least be based on facts.

First, tu handily beating UNC this year should be no surprise to any sports reporter doing his/her job. Despite its wins over Ohio St and Michigan State (neither of which, at least so far this year, are proving to be as good as the pundits thought), UNC is simply not as good as its hype this year (see losses to Syracuse, John Wall and now tu). Should the tarred heels backcourt ever start to play in the same league as its frontcourt, that will change, but it isn't happening now. As long as that remains the case, the tarred heels will continue to lose to talented teams, as we have seen to date.

Conversely,tu is as good as its press, despite losing Ward for the year, and they are showing it. This is really no surprise to anyone who has been following the game so far this year. With Balbay's long range shooting as its only real weak spot, tu has excellent players -- and many of them -- contributing to its nation's best defense and undefeated record.

But KU is also good as its press, and is showing it DESPITE seemingly lackluster wins. Wins that they've secured while having its two potential All-Americans playing poorly because of illness. How well would tu be doing if just one of either James or Pittman was ill? Thank you. Whereas last year's KU team would have had two losses already this year due to poor performances by its AA duo, this one remains undefeated, and relatively untested in the process except for a tenacious Memphis team. Once Aldrich and Collins are both healthy, look out.

For Keegan to ignore such facts -- chalk up another mark against his "good sports reporter" record. He's sure not #1 in my poll.

December 21, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )