Advertisement

Morichalion (Glenn Reed)

Follow

Comment history

Metaphysical Fair gains popularity in Lawrence

I'm tempted to go. I'd probably get kicked out pretty quick though. This set of people just don't respond well to the certain kinds of questions.

July 13, 2013 at 10:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Metaphysical Fair gains popularity in Lawrence

This is actually a good question. I believe the answer is no, but it's not unheard of that insurance companies cover certain kinds of alt-med stuff while choosing not to cover real medicine.

July 13, 2013 at 10:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas State Board of Education to consider teacher code of conduct

Why not also find a non-ljworld website for news, as well? NOT doing so will likely subject you to more survey-questions.

July 8, 2013 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fight over Kansas abortion law in state court

You asked a question, I gave a possible answer. I also made a point of clarifying all this as a hypothetical. Sentences number 2 and 3, in fact...

"It would require a rewrite of lots of rules and regulations, though. Many of these issues require a bit of rehashing on a gender roles and rights."

What I wrote down wasn't intended to be a complete solution, in any case. That would take more time and effort than I'm willing to write on the comment section.

Current family law regulations do talk about "best interests of the child" a lot. I'd contend that very often, perhaps most of the time, even, that point is given a low place in practice.

The general point I was attempting to make was that, in an environment where abortion is legal, safe, and affordable, a woman has a choice. The choice comes with a certain responsibility.

If she knows what all the variables are, and decides to carry the fetus to term regardless, then she's made that decision.

June 27, 2013 at 10:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fight over Kansas abortion law in state court

There's "right" ways to go about providing equal rights and responsibilities to all involved parties in family law and reproductive rights. It would require a rewrite of lots of rules and regulations, though. Many of these issues require a bit of rehashing on a gender roles and rights.

Given the fact that the woman's the only one that gets pregnant, it'll never be completely balanced.

So far as the issue of abortion goes...

Well, let's say Steve and Sally had a fun night. A month later, Sally suddenly finds herself craving peanut-butter-covered crab meat, and decides to get a pregnancy test. Stick is blue.

Sally has options....

1. "I want the kid on my own."
Sally makes a decision to be a single mom, assuming all the related responsibilities by her self.

2. "Let's see what Steve says..." This is where it gets a bit complicated.

a. Steve says YAY!
Steve is officially on the hook. He'll be granted rights and responsibilities as the father if she has the kid. He's willing to be a dad, if Sally's willing to be a mom.

b. Steve says Nay.
Steve is officially off the hook. He'll be denied rights and responsibilities as the father if she has a the kid. He's gonna be a stranger. If Sally has the kid, She's on her own.

c. Steve says, "I want the kid, but I don't want YOU."
Steve wants sole custody, and wants Sally to be the stranger. If Sally has the kid, it could get complicated.

In any case, at every step, Sally should have the right to change her mind. If she's not enthused about working together with Steve as parents, being a single parent isn't feasible, or getting into a custody fight with Steve isn't worth it, she always has the option to end it.

June 27, 2013 at 7:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fight over Kansas abortion law in state court

"Sorry, but the father should have thought about the possibility of pregnancy BEFORE he had sex."

This statement suggests that the women are incapable of thinking about the possibility of pregnancy BEFORE she had sex.

"Afterwards, it's the woman's body and HER decision what to do with HER own body. If she has an abortion, that's her right."

I can agree with that statement. If a woman gets knocked up, a man can protest. But she still has the final decision.

"If she keeps it, that 's her right and the father has to pay to raise it."

Here's where you found the deep end of an empty pool, and jumped. "Fair" would give the man involved some decision making power. Here, he has none. He's got lots of responsibilities, but no rights.

"You think we should live in a world where the men will dictate what a woman does with her own body?"

No, I don't think Boiled does, either.

"Funny, I thought I was living in the 21st century and a free society and full rights."

What you just described stripped men of most of their reproductive rights.

June 27, 2013 at 7:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Economic well-being of children in Kansas getting worse, according to new study

"It started with politician 'x' and therefore politician 'y' is evil." will fix nothing.

We should be asking if the government is doing something to address the issue, and if those actions will be effective solutions.

Honestly, when discussing social issues, it's very near impossible to leave out public education. A higher level of education generally translates to lower poverty rates, right? So, a longer-term solution would be providing as many people as possible the highest-quality education possible.

Based upon the actions of our current state legislature and governor, I have the come to the conclusion that public education simply is not a priority for our current representatives.

There's solutions to the more immediate concerns of malnutrition, insufficient medicine, job insecurity, and housing insecurity. Really, there are...

The problem with those is that even thinking of them brings psychotic rants about taking care of children being some evil thing to do. Usually from elected officials that people continue to vote for.

I feel that an uptick in child poverty is a big problem. I don't feel that our current state government is really all that concerned with approaching the issue.

June 25, 2013 at 12:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Economic well-being of children in Kansas getting worse, according to new study

Interesting anecdote. Kind of insulting, in a way, but interesting nonetheless.

A few points I'd like to have cleared up, though....

"I know of one dad that doesn't pay his child support, and every so often the court makes him come to court, just for him to say "oh I don't have the money", the judge says ok I'll give you a couple more months."

---In the state of Kansas, and honestly I imagine most jurisdictions in the US, child support is taking from wage garnishments. Meaning, if the guy in your story had a job, he'd be paying. Does this guy work anywhere? If he DID work, would that satisfy the "dead-beat-dad" status?

"I had heard one time they were going to crack down on these dead beat dads and start putting them in jail but guess that has went by the way side."

--There's a good reason this went by the way-side (it hasn't, actually, men do get arrested for failing to pay child support). It's very difficult to make money from jail, and it costs a lot of money to put people in jail. Do you really, honestly think that putting someone in jail is a valid solution to the problem of making them honor a debt?

A question I'd have for you beyond that is what practical role does the guy play in the child's lives? Do they know him? If they don't, why not? Is he actually opposed to having some kind of visitation with the kids, or is the good mom doing what she can to keep him absent?

You have one story about a dead-beat dad, I have a dozen about good men who never get to see their children. Shadow, family law sucks. There's good people who are screwed over every day because some bad person doesn't care about the effect actions will have on the children.

There's issues, lots of issues, with family law and how that law is executed. Aside from some isolated scenarios, fixing those regulations will have no effect on the issue of child poverty.

June 24, 2013 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Effort to block new education standards fails in House

I've been away from the world for too long, didn't realize the education standards recommended by Common Core or the Next Generation Science Standards was cause for any serious, policy forming debate.

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the big emotion-filled critique of these standards is the same tired "states rights vs. federal control" argument.

Or, as others have so eloquently stated, encroaching communism. Fear and more fear without confirmation of what's to be feared.

Unless the state was to enter into an agreement with the federal government, even adopting all of the standards from both sets of guidelines does nothing to threaten whatever autonomy the state has.

There's nothing keeping the states from adopting pieces and parts of common core and next gen science, either. If a state wanted to adopt Kindergarten through grade 8 science standards, and draft their own for grades 9-12, they can.

A set of standards doesn't equal a curriculum, either.

Reading through the standards myself, I just can't see what's got everyone so riled up. I spent a bit of time looking at both www.corestandards.org and www.nextgenscience.org/ and I've found nothing, literally nothing at all, to justify the fear of loss of freedom.

June 3, 2013 at 12:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback signs 'Celebrate Freedom Week' bill

"The religious references in the writings of the founding fathers shall not be censored when presented as part of such instruction."

I certainly hope this is done. Many of the founding fathers had interesting things to say about religion.

May 24, 2013 at 9:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )