Comment history


Now that it's taken so long to craft that comment, the comments it was meant to address are buried far deep in the past. I was referring to Osi's comment about Michelle Obama's "finally proud to be an American" speech and the ensuing race-based replies. If you don't read those, you'll ask, "where did this come from?" My apologies for my tardiness.....but not the content.

November 23, 2010 at 2:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


I voted for George W. Bush because Al Gore is a blithering idiot. I was throughly dissatisfied with GWB's first term and was forced to vote for him again to keep John Kerry, out of the Oval Office. I would have much preferred Colin Powell the first time around but he was too smart to run. Two things disappoint me most about Obama's election as our President. First, it saddens me that the American people valued being part of some PC statement to prove something to the world over serious scrutiny of the person ready to take the highest office in the land. It was socially more important to elect a non-white and/or non-male; so important that his dubious background didn't matter. Whether or not he was constitutionally qualified to even hold the office was swept under the carpet. The ensuing media bloodbath could have been avoided altogether but, instead, hiding something very costly to his campaign was worth losing that much credibility and enduring all that political heat. His involvement in some of the most notorious Pendergast-style Illinois politics was marginalized by the media. For the first time that I know of in recent history, a candidate's records were sealed from investigation. If the contents are innocent, there should be no problem.
Second, if you subscribe to the above that it was indeed that important, above all else, to put a non-white in office, blacks across the country should be severely disappointed. Obama has taken the first and, perhaps only opportunity, to powerfully promote the positive image of blacks across this nation and squandered it. He's made a laughingstock of the Office of President of the United States and significantly damaged the security and reputation of the United States. When the dust (and paper) settles in 5-10 years and Obama's Presidency, like all before it, is examined by historians to determine its successes and failures, Obama will most likely go down as one of the most incompetent Presidents of all time....surpassing even Carter and Hoover. FYI, they were President before you were born. Sadly, however, Obama's presidential papers will probably also be sealed like everything else about him and he will not only be the first non-white President, he will also be the first modern-day President without a library.
There is a reason that the U.S. Constitution and the form of government we currently enjoy stands as the longest-lasting in the world. America works; whether its convenient for you or the rest of the world. The convoluted, highly un-natural process Obama's rise to power has taken is an example of a perversion of that Constitution and that form of government. Osi, if you're so ashamed of the country you live in, you should renounce your citizenship and move away. What? No? That's what I thought.

November 23, 2010 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts sign on to federal health reform challenge

You really should be careful when you make statements like that Merrill. Trying to equate party politics by the party name any further back than about 30 years is pretty reckless and distortive. The terms republican and democrat and conservative and liberal have had widely different meanings over this country's history. For example, the term liberal years ago was coined in a more business/economic rather than social sense and, if equated with the parties we have today, would actually be considered a "laissez-faire" or modern republican approach to policy. True TR was a "Republican" but he was also a staunch progressive....which is a policy attitude most in line with modern socially liberal Democrats as we know them today.

November 23, 2010 at 12:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Another attack on individual freedom

DING! Well said.

November 22, 2010 at 9 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Another attack on individual freedom

Bea, why do these "pot-shot" inflammatory retorts make up the bulk of your posts?

November 22, 2010 at 8:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Another attack on individual freedom

You can all whine about the bulk of the article...playing your political games volleying shots against one side of it or the other and otherwise craftily trying to insert your pet issues that are consistently irrelevant to the subject. The true meat of the whole article was two paragraphs.....The one about disproportion with the driving safety allegory and the quote-worthy comment about bureaucracies and adult supervision. Re-read these two paragraphs and ignore the rest. He's absolutely spot on here: There is a reasonable amount of precaution that can and should be taken in any endeavor; but the law of diminishing returns warns of "the tendency for a continuing application of effort or skill toward a particular project or goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain level of result has been achieved." Is maximum protection necessary; even in flight safety? Point number two, we desperately need mature grown-up folks to oversee and vet the process, then say, "OK, that's enough." No one has the guts to do that because one's political career, too often, depends on not making calls like that. The fact is, regardless of who the President is (and I wish people would start to realize how little that matters over the long run), the people that administer TSA, just like all other bureaucratic machines, do try to maximize their mission. They get paid to sit around all day and think about "how we can do something more and justify a larger budget next year?" The process will never end. That's why government spends more and more; getting bigger and bigger; providing more and more services that are of less and less value. I don't fly that often but, over the course of several years, I've been through every procedure out there....bag inspections, confiscated articles, scanners, the sniffer. None of it is a big deal. Like I said in my post about this topic last week, we have many more important "grown-up" issues to worry about besides this. Get scanned and get on the damn plane.

November 22, 2010 at 8:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Gov.-elect Sam Brownback inaugural to include community service events, prayer service

So who decided my reply to Ricky Vaughn and the lesson about separation of church and state needed to be removed? Speak up....don't be a coward. I don't believe there was anything derogatory or offensive in the post. Just a REAL history lesson. Too bad the world is so full of such shallow-skinned individuals.

November 19, 2010 at 8:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Airport security has gone too far

If you 'carefully' read the last four lines of my post, your question becomes moot. Oh and, by the way, aircraft are aluminum. LOL

November 19, 2010 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Airport security has gone too far

I suppose it depends on how attractive you think the frisker is. LOL. Good post that keeps the issues in proper perspective.

November 19, 2010 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Airport security has gone too far

OK...let me re-phrase that....after all the money we spend on DHS and travel security, I expect to get my money's worth and not have to worry about what you have between your buttcheeks when you board. I don't "like" any of this any more that you do but, if you're going to complain about this new procedure, ask what wasn't working about the current system? Did a plane explode while I wasn't watching the news? One would hope that this new invasive process was created to address a recent incident or an exploited gap in our current security measures. To date I see none....only another opportunity for government to spend more and grow bigger. To address question # 2, I know how a lot of people talk about TSA agents but almost all of them I've ever dealt with have been nothing but professional and courteous. To address question #3, probably not. IN FACT....I believe there still exists a "streamlined security program" for frequent travelers. If you fill out all the papers just right and pass a series of background checks, common citizens can receive special credentials that allow them to bypass a lot of the secuirty crap. I'm not sure if that still exists but I think so. As far as politicians and pilots go, when I read that a (typically ex-military) pilot decided to go terrorist and crash a jet into Lake Michigan or the Congressman from the State of XYZ is caught carrying an explosive onboard a jet, then I'll start worrying what TSA does with them.

November 19, 2010 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )