bethlang1998 (Betty Bartholomew)

Follow

Comment history

Opinion: So, Donald Trump is number one?

That there are people out there who support Trump does not surprise me. That nobody is reporting on what that says about the rest of the Republican field does. If they had any candidate who actually spoke to the majority of their base, Trump would not be leading. Instead, they are so splintered they can't manage to unite the party behind any one or two options, leaving this idiot in the lead. So on upside, there is 83% of the party who don't support him. The bad news is those 83% can't agree on anybody to beat him. Which is why the Republicans are going to have a difficult time taking back the White House.

July 19, 2015 at 6:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas residents now have higher taxes but less gun regulation

I have always thought that was one of the most grammatically incoherent pieces of the constitution. According to Wikipedia, there are two versions of the second amendment.

The first, in the handwritten copy preserved in the Archives, uses the extra commas making it actually read, "A well regulated militia [...] shall not be infringed," as the two parts set off by commas are explanatory and could just as well be left out.

But the article states that another version that was ratified reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," which in popular reading confers the right for individuals to own guns.

But one could make the argument, given the way things were worded in the Constitution and the Declaration, that "the people" refers to the collective and the amendment to being able to raise a military force and not to individuals having guns just to have guns, in which case having guns just to have guns would fall to each state to decide.

In either case, it seems to me that the purpose was to be able to have an armed force to defend the country, or else why bring in the militia wording?

Sadly, we can't go back and ask them for clarification, or explain that we have a huge military force, or are allies with Britain, or that there are guns that shoot hundreds of rounds per second, or the lessening of the need for hunting for food... All sorts of things they didn't/couldn't foresee when they wrote it that might have resulted in different wording.

I also wonder what they would think of our reluctance to make changes to the Constitution when the need arises given that they gave us the tools to do so, or of us being satisfied with living by rules written ~240 years ago by men who couldn't imagine how society might evolve. I mean, hats off to them that most of what they wrote has stood the test of time, but we should at least be open to writing in clarification where needed as society changes.

July 6, 2015 at 10:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansans react to same-sex marriage ruling

That there is any question of "what kind of recognition" will be given is absurd. Any recognitions and benefits given to marriages recognized in Kansas prior to Friday should now be automatically extended to same-sex marriages. Not that difficult of a concept.

The only difficult part should/will be getting any software updates made that need made - we saw how that titles and regs update went a few years ago; Kansas is not a tech hot spot for a reason.

June 28, 2015 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Talk of a new dog park and a $10 per year dog license requirement for Lawrence; Quonset hut debate in East Lawrence on hold; city manager search update

Here's an idea to raise funds: Actually fine people who are walking their pets off leash and/or not picking up their waste. Holding the leash in your hand while your dog isn't on it doesn't count! (I don't care how well trained your dog is off leash - put it on.)

Or how about this: Every time I catch a dog that isn't mine using my yard for a restroom, I get to charge the owner a user fee and I donate half to the city. Win-win for me and the town.

June 19, 2015 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas representative faces hearing over 'racist' remarks

Since I'd forgotten about this story, my thought process was , "What did she say that was racist? ....Oh...She's under a hearing because she called others racist. Yeah, that makes sense. In Kansas."

For goodness sake, suck up that you were called racist and move on. Or maybe examine why you were called racist. Either way, trying to get her in trouble because she said it is a waste of time, but what else should we expect of our current crop of time wasters?

June 19, 2015 at 10:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Legislature planning to ease controversial welfare restriction

So with the lingerie exclusion, does that mean if your kid has outgrown their underwear at the same time as you happen to be on TANF, you can't buy them new underwear with the card? Or if a woman gets a monthly stain she can't buy new underwear? Or if her underwire busts on her last bra she can't get a new bra? They lean toward pretty broad exclusions without many clarifications, so it seems like that would be the case.

I'd think people would just be taking cash out of their TANF accounts to get around some of these restrictions.

June 5, 2015 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU, other universities warn employees of possible furloughs

KU is actually in the process of reclassifying employees. Last year, a large number of admin support positions - including my hourly-pay customer service position - were switched from university support staff to unclassified professional staff, though without necessarily any boost in pay. They are trying to bring designations in line with the private sector. The larger benefit was a higher vacation accrual. Anyhow, you really cannot go by USS positions alone because a lot of non-faculty positions have been switched.

As far as the furloughs go, student workers in many offices are also being asked not to come in since they, too, are state employees.

June 4, 2015 at 6:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: ‘Briefcase’ is new low for reality TV

It really is a despicable concept: Give money to two families who really could use it, then try to trick them into giving it away or make them look like jerks if they don't.

A more worthwhile program would be to give a million dollars each to a couple of millionaires and see if you can get them to give it to charity.

CBS should now do away with their CBS Cares campaign, because they obviously don't.

(On a related note: I have a bone to pick with asking poor people to give away money. A good example is donation takers outside of a Walmart. Do you really think people who shop at Walmart have a lot of money to give to charity? No, you shop at Walmart because you're so tightly budgeted you don't have a penny to spare and have to make every one of them count. However, you don't see donation set ups in front of a nice restaurant where the people inside obviously can spare a bit if they can afford to eat there, or outside of movie theatres. Somehow asking Mr. & Mrs. Steak Dinner And A Movie for a donation is crass, but asking Mr. & Mrs. Walmart On A Budget to donate is a-ok.)

June 4, 2015 at 8:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas GOP senators propose taking break amid deadlock on tax talks

Un-freakin'-believable.

State workers are looking at a decrease in income until they've got this sorted, and they want to take a week-long break right before the deadline?

There are not enough foul words for these people. I hope their office staff bring them a big batch of Ex-Lax brownies.

June 3, 2015 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas lawmakers approve further limits on local gun rules

Wow. How infuriating. They're there right now because they can't pass a budget, so they work on something else. It reminds me of cleaning my room when I was a teenager: I'd be grounded and couldn't leave my room until it was clean, so of course I'd take a nap.

Holy hell.

June 3, 2015 at 1:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous