bliddel (Bruce Liddel)

Follow

Comment history

City set to finalize curbside recycling program to begin October 2014; monthly rate $2.81

Fascism run amuck. Mala Prohibita. Oh, exhalted City Commissioners, please protect the masses from private entrepreneurs who would dare to pickup our recyclable items at our curb. Never mind that the city said twelve years ago that our landfill would last 150 years, and that curbisde recycling would cost $50 a month. When private industry came in, first at $20 a month, then at $5 a month, the commissioner squawked "How dare they make liars out of us?", and so this is their response: Put those evil businesses out of business! Eliminate choice! Control the subjects! One size must be made to fit all, no matter the consequences!

Seig Heil!, I mean, hail victory! Big government at its worst, right here in River City.

March 22, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Disarming

Like firearms, automobiles are inanimate objects. Some people exercise a total lack of good judgment with their motor vehicles and, unfortunately, some people are killed – indeed, some are even murdered.

Should we now adopt waiting periods, background checks, insanely higher fuel taxes, automobile-free zones, bans on automobiles with more than four cylinders, bans ion high-capacity fuel tanks, bans on wider doors that permit faster loading of passengers, bans on red motor vehicles, bans on busses with high-capacity seating, bans on semi-automatic transmissions, bans on batwings, bans on fuel injection, etc. because some people do not always exercise good judgment with their inanimate objects (motor vehicles)?

Should we ban ownership of motor vehicles altogether because such is not constitutionally protected? If not, why not?

If you say that we should not ban motor vehicles because it is the irresponsible use of motor vehicles that is the problem, and not the mere possession of motor vehicles, then you simply need to apply the same rational thinking to firearms.

December 31, 2012 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Guns on campus

Separating the fact from the emption is key to addressing this issue in a constructive manner.

Bad people with guns do bad things. Bad people get guns because they are bad people, and they do not obey gun laws, or laws about gun-free zones, or laws against murder, etc. Once a bad person begins doing something bad with a gun, the only effective way to stop the bad person is by a good person with a gun.

Taking all the guns away from good people (who do nothing bad with their guns) will only make it all the harder to stop bad people from continuing to do bad things with guns.

Furthermore, putting the Newtown tragedy in perspective, you are statistically about 160 times more likely to be shot by a cop than to be shot by anyone in a school setting. Should we disarm cops? Given the alarming frequency with which they have begun warrantless (SWAT) storm-troop nighttime raids on the wrong houses, with fatal results, I think so.

Every year, in the United States, far more young children are killed by drowning in swimming pools than by firearms violence, yet nobody has yet called for a ban on so-called assault-swimming pools. In December 2012, the drones over middle-east nations killed more innocent young children than in any mass school shooting ever. Nobody seems concerned that president Obama is a homicidal maniac – even though the statistics show that he must be exactly that. I call this the arrogance of selective indignation.

The second amendment is not about hunting, and not about self defense. The second amendment is about the right to overthrow a corrupt tyrannical government. History has shown many times (Hitler, late 1930s) that governments become corrupt and tyrannical right after they implement sweeping gun control legislation.

Somehow that does not fit my idea of the land of the free and the home of the brave.

December 31, 2012 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Largest wind farm in Kansas to begin operation soon

If Wind power was really the cure for everything energy related, the electric utilities would convert all their plants to wind, not just those forced on it by ignorant arrogant tree-hugging politicians.

Recall that those same ignorant short-sighted politicians forced the utilities to switch to coal back in the 1970s, because there was a perceived looming natural gas shortage.

Wind power is not inherently evil, though it is fraught with many disadvantages.

Perhaps chief among those disadvantages is that wind power only works when the wind blows. When does the wind blow? Ask anyone who flies an airplane: the wind blows most often late in the afternoon. When is peak electrical consumption? Ask anyone who works for an electric utility and they will tell you there are two electrical demand peaks: one in the early morning, when the wind rarely blows, and another larger peak in the evening, as the winds are dying down.

So there is the rub. The wind mostly only blows when demand is fully met by baseline generating plants. So making electricity with wind costs the electric utility a lot more than it is worth to the utility. You bet your rates are going up. I can’t blame the utility for the shortsightedness of tree-huggers.

December 31, 2012 at 3:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Poll: More say global warming is occurring

The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. A falsehood is false even if everyone believes it. Real scientists don't rely on polls of self-proclaimed scientists, to come to conclusions about the forces of nature and the physics of life. The world has been warmer than it is now. If the internal combustion engine is really the one and only devil, how could the earth have ever cooled to where we are now, which evidently occurred prior to the internal combustion engine?

Do we really have inexhaustible resources to throw at possible global warming, while the world is busy killing itself off in wars, and bailing bankers out ad infinitum, and paying ever more in taxes to our greedy politicians? No. Financial discipline must be learned, and learned very quickly, or the real impending calamity will be the implosion of what little freedom we have left, and a very bloody revolution.

December 17, 2012 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence police call second public meeting on downtown surveillance cameras

It's called the "Fourth amendment". Say what you will, but your desire to have government protect you from every concievable harm only means that we will soon have an utterly totalitarian government akin to what we suffered under the British empire until 1776, and we will all be a lot less safe.

If guns cause crime, why did the US government just purchase over 600 millions rounds of ammo? Who but us could they possibly be planning to kill?

Meanwhile, I vow to boycott all business in view of surveilance cameras.

December 17, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence man, 52, dies in FedEx plane crash near Wichita

OMG it was Brian after all. He was the best friend one could have, and perhaps also the best flight instructor, period. He'd already cheated death when he hit a flock of Canada Geese years ago in Topeka. If anyone could have survived this, it would have been Brian.

He turned me on to Ernest Gann "Fate is the Hunter". I always assumed one day Brian would stop flying, by choice, and not by fate. This hurts, really badly.

N23BQ, RIP.

November 7, 2012 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence man, 52, dies in FedEx plane crash near Wichita

Whew! I remembered his tail number incorrectly, and it is still registered, so it's not him. Still, I always hate to see things like this. The Caravan is an easy plane to fly, so, this doesn't look like pilot error to me. :-(

November 6, 2012 at 2:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence man, 52, dies in FedEx plane crash near Wichita

I have a friend who flies for a living, whom I haven't spoken to in awhile, and who is about 52, and has lived in Lawrence for at least the last 3 decades. What's worse, the company he used to fly for got him a vanity aircraft registration number, and I see that number is now deregistered, hence, he has surely changed jobs, possibly to FedEx.

I have a very bad feeling now. I sure hope my fears are misplaced.

November 6, 2012 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Premise questioned

Please get over this "two sides" idea. The world is not flat. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Voting for evil is also evil. Voting for evil - simply because you think your favorite evil can win - is evil too. There will be about five candidates on Kansas ballots. Why not vote for one who is not evil, one who does not want more war and more civil asset forfeiture and more indefinite detention and even more militarized state and local police and fewer civil liberties, and who doesn't buy votes with your tax dollars, and one who doesn't still think we are winning the war on recreational drugs at an affordable cost. Why not vote for someone who would effect so much change for the better that both Rs and Ds were afraid to debate him? Why not vote for someone whose populatrity has grown so much that the Corporation for Presidental Debates had to change their rules to keep the threat out of the prime-time presidential debates?

November 2, 2012 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )