blackcopter (Lane Signal)


Comment history

$500k grant to Wicked Broadband up for debate at City Hall; tax abatements and Santa Fe Depot project also on tap for discussion

Wicked has not dealt with the city in good faith in the past and has not realized previous goals. We need to stop feeding them money. I would love to see faster internet service in town, but I don't trust Wicked. I'd really like the city to make a formal show of interest in getting Google to put fiber here.

January 21, 2014 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Regents call for review of recently approved social media policy

Let's hope Mr. Logan's motives are sincere. There is not much in the recently approved policy that is consistent with free speech. I hope he's not just trying to buy some time for people to forget about the policy. I hope, at the very least, if the Regents fail essentially to repeal the policy, that this extension in the time line serves to keep the spotlight on an incredibly unfair and dangerous limit to the speech of our academic community.

December 31, 2013 at 5:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun perspective

Guns are a big part of the cause of the violence in our country. Gun culture is part of the problem, not just a symptom.

The celebration and display of fire arms draws people to the weapons. Many weapons sold here are designed primarily to kill people. Call it "self defense" or "deterrence", but a large number of the guns sold are made and marketed as effective against people. This is designed to cultivate a culture that views guns as a solution to problems, a means to empowerment. The subtle message is "carry a gun and you will be tough", "carry a gun and you will be cool". In a culture where guns are everywhere, they become a handy tool. If you have a problem, consider a gun as a possible solution.

That leads to a really wonderful situation (for the gun manufacturers anyway). Now, so many people have a gun, and there is a significant amount of gun violence. Now it's not too hard to convince many people that they need a gun to be safe. They need to carry, or at least have in their home, a gun to defend themselves against all those crazy people who have guns already.

I'm not claiming guns are the only cause of violence in our country, just a significant component.

December 22, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

University employees: New social media policy is broad, vague and "chilling"

But in this case we are talking about a public institution, a government financed and government run employer. Rather than argue about the legality of the policy, I'd rather focus on how sad and stupid it is. This is just another sign that our country is headed in an increasingly dangerous direction. On various levels of government, they are creating arbitrary rules about what our academics can say if they want to keep their jobs, they are gathering data on our movements and who we talk to, they are suspending rights to due process. However small this step may seem, making it harder for the academics to speak is another step toward a police state where no one is free to express themselves. It's a slippery slope and we are already careening down the hill.

December 20, 2013 at 10:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Regents pass social media policy in wake of Guth tweet

In general, any government that wants to limit speech, will start by silencing the academic community. Academics set an example for their students and for the larger community. If they fear to speech out, that fear is contagious.

Also, I think your analogy is flawed. The Journal World can limit what's posted on their site, but the Board of Regents is not saying it can limit speech on their site(s). They are saying an employee may not express himself/herself publicly. They are saying that employment at the University is contingent on silence on any controversial issue.

December 19, 2013 at 11:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Regents pass social media policy in wake of Guth tweet

They could have just shortened it to say "If any faculty or staff uses social media then the chief executive officer of a state university has the authority to suspend, dismiss or terminate that faculty or staff member." That seems to be the legal implication of the proposed policy. The criteria for application of the policy are so broad and nebulous that any tweet of any political nature, any tweet that expresses an opinion of any kind, could be grounds for dismissal. It's Orwellian.

December 18, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback says perception of ALEC influence is 'overblown'

ALEC is so influential because it is aligned so strongly with corporate and private donors who craft and drive it's agenda. ALEC is a means for the wealthy and big corporations to band together and fund candidates who support a common agenda. That common agenda is concerned with 2 primary goals: government policy that financially rewards the wealthy (corporate and private) and policy that favors the election of those willing to favor the wealthy. Republican politicians know 2 things about ALEC: If a politician supports the ALEC agenda they will find significant funding. If a politician does not support the ALEC agenda, their competition (for Republicans, often within their own party) will get that funding.

December 18, 2013 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback says perception of ALEC influence is 'overblown'

You would think Brownie would at least be smart enough to keep quiet about ALEC. Denying something so obvious just draws attention to it. Perhaps Brownie's intention is to draw attention to his ALEC affiliation, but that's pretty stupid. Most ALEC affiliated donors are self unconscious enough to want to avoid a spot light on their activities. They know any light on their real agenda will be unflattering light. But Brownie seems too stupid realize this.

December 18, 2013 at 6:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Sharing the wealth not a radical idea

I really don't think the middle class has much say in what goes on. The wealthy are making all the rules. I'm okay with getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction and even the child deduction even though I profit from both, but lets not start there. Let's start with taxing capital gains at a higher rate. Let's start with getting rid of the carried interest deduction. Let's start by taxing all earnings (not just "income") at a progressive rate. As long as the initial focus is on deductions and loopholes that disproportionately favor the wealthy, I'm okay with getting rid of almost all deductions, dodges and shelters. I would like to keep retirement savings shelters (with caps) and I'd also like to keep college savings plans sheltered. But I'd give it all away if it meant the rich would actually pay their share and that the debt started to shrink rather than grow.

December 16, 2013 at 11:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Renewable energy facing a headwind

But, just like in many of the best detective stories, those who would be responsible to act, are corrupt and are paid to look the other way. If this were an objective exercise in finding the truth, everyone would accept the conclusions of the vast majority of the scientific community about global warming. The evidence seems pretty clear. But it really does not matter to Brownie and his crew in the legislature. We could provide overwhelming evidence, even absolute proof, but they will continue to deny. To the radical right, a political agenda is far more real than scientific evidence.

December 16, 2013 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )