Legislature makes no progress; Brownback leaves state to tout tax cuts

I don't agree. Brownie is pretty dim, but I don't think he's stupid enough to buy the thin excuses ALEC and the Kock brothers are using to justify themselves. I don't think the intent is that anyone actually believe that stuff, they just say that because they can't use "We want all the money" as their reason for their policies. Brownie IS dumb enough to think it's in his long term interest to push the ALEC/Koch agenda, but he is mistaken there as well. He will be discarded when his is no longer useful.

May 21, 2013 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Higher education officials say concealed carry on campus probably inevitable in the future

What about the dorms? Will this allow an 18 year-old to have an assault rife in his/her dorm room under the new law? How safe is that going to make everyone feel?

May 16, 2013 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Higher education officials say concealed carry on campus probably inevitable in the future

What the legislature is saying is let's extend this culture of fear and make sure no one feels safe. They want no one to feel safe unless they have a gun. This is like big tobacco pushing cigarettes on teens. The gun lobby wants to bring that culture of fear to the youngest and most impressionable audience possible. If they thought they could make it happen, I bet they would push to allow high school students to carry at school. They could claim it was part of an anti bullying campaign.

May 16, 2013 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

State education board may seek attorney general's opinion on 'innovative districts' law

But what is the point? The authors of the law must have had some idea what they were trying to accomplish. What reasons have they given for the need for this flexibility? What specific changes might result in positive impact in student performance? If supporters of the bill are not able to provide this information, then their unwillingness to justify the law should have been reported. Critics of the law must have some opinion on the agenda here. I'm certainly left with the impression that Mr. Hancock does not understand the law, but he is the reporter. He's supposed to figure out what's going on and tell us.

May 14, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

State education board may seek attorney general's opinion on 'innovative districts' law

How about some actual journalism here. Peter Hancock, can't you tell us what is really going on here? Can't you tell us what supporters of this new law claim they can bring to the table. Can't you tell us what opponents think the true agenda is? Your single example about student contact hours does not really help me understand. How about a little reporting.

May 14, 2013 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Wicked Broadband project seeks $500,000 city grant; downtown hotel project seeks adjustment to incentives package; historical society seeks $20k for new exhibit

I would refer you to this article:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan...

I think it outlines how Freenet represented itself as nonprofit with the promise of a mission to bring internet to low income families only to funnel most of the money to a for profit company. They then continued to ask for public money for expansion efforts. And the number of low income families helped was not many. Others should read the article and draw their own conclusions, but my take is that Freenet deceived the city into giving them access to city resources by representing themselves as nonprofit when in fact Freenet was just a shell nonprofit.

My other issue is even after gaining a big advantage (through deception) Freenet was never able to extend their network through all of the city.

So, that's 2 strikes. Dishonest and unable to grow the business.

May 11, 2013 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Wicked Broadband project seeks $500,000 city grant; downtown hotel project seeks adjustment to incentives package; historical society seeks $20k for new exhibit

Again, ljwhirled, it's not that we don't want gigabit internet. It's that we do want gigabit internet. We just don't want to flush our money away on an group that has a bad track record and has not dealt honestly with the city in the past. A vote against Wicked is not a vote against progress, it's a vote against Wicked.

May 11, 2013 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Wicked Broadband project seeks $500,000 city grant; downtown hotel project seeks adjustment to incentives package; historical society seeks $20k for new exhibit

I'm all for local, grass roots efforts. If there were someone local that I trusted and believed in asking the city to pony up $500K to make reasonably priced super fast internet happen in Lawrence, I'd lend an excited voice to say, "Yes, please". I don't trust Montgomery and I think there is reason not to. I'd rather the city give $500K to Google if Google is willing to bring fiber to Lawrence. Giving our money to a big corporation who can deliver the service is better than giving it to someone I don't believe will deliver and I don't trust.

May 11, 2013 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Wicked Broadband project seeks $500,000 city grant; downtown hotel project seeks adjustment to incentives package; historical society seeks $20k for new exhibit

When the city leaders look at Mr. Montgomery's track record, I think they should see a string of unfulfilled goals, but more than that, I think they will see a string of sneaky and deceptive business practices. Freenet was represented as a grass roots, nonprofit organization created to bring internet to the masses. It never really worked that way and the number of lower income beneficiaries was limited. Freenet may have been nonprofit, but it was designed to turn a profit on the support side. Now he wants us to pony up a huge pile of cash. I think not. It might be different if there was a track record of good faith effort and success realizing goals.

May 10, 2013 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Republicans push through proposal blocking the desires of advocates for the developmentally disabled

Is this a little Republican game of "Good governmental branch, bad governmental branch"? Is Brownie taking a stand on an issue to show he is compassionate because he has a secret understanding with the radical right in the legislature to cut these programs to the bone? Is this something Brownie can veto if he chooses? Will he?

But, Kansans are the ones who elected these greedy, cruel, short sighted idiots to Congress, so ultimately this is a reflection on Kansas and how we treat those who face challenges.

May 9, 2013 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )