Budget provision would block state funding for Common Core standards

Perhaps, no, you should read the actual Common Core curriculuum explanation before you go off on your tangent. The Feds had nothing to do with the making of these standards. Rather, as you wish to ignore, the states who really cared about education got together and formulated standards that, with the input of both politicians (governors) and educators (state education heads), they deemed sbest for the kids.

May 17, 2013 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Budget provision would block state funding for Common Core standards

Yes! The vast hordes of people who vote in Kansas.

Oops, I forgot.................................

May 17, 2013 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Budget provision would block state funding for Common Core standards

What is wrong is easy to see: the takeover of the moderate Republican Party that has stood Kansas so well historically by the Neo-Republicans now in power. The corollary to that is the voters of Kansas who have taken no time to truly understand the "ideological" pablum handed out by that party, and have blindly followed talking points that promote fear and superstition.

May 17, 2013 at 6:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Road work on K-10 bypass begins Friday; downtown and 23rd Street bridges reopen

So, traffic will be reduced to one lane in both directions on a two-lane road? Sounds like what's there now to me.

Maybe.................. only one lane open at all while the other is closed?

May 15, 2013 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Poor leadership

Whatever.

May 10, 2013 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Poor leadership

Bozo, you make the same arguments almost every time this subject comes up. The problem is that you couch your dire predictions with "almost certainly", "little if any", and the like.

Perhaps you are correct, perhaps not. But my "arguments" are no less true than yours. I have no doubt you feel strongly about this issue, as do I. But it seems to me that you are making some assumptions about the Menard's soning request that need to be researched a little deeper. The fact of building a large store does not necessarily "trash the zoning already in place".

I do believe in maintaining the "character" of the town I love, as do you. I do not believe that the simple fact of locating a store which will "most probably" provide employment and tax income for the city should put us, the residents, up in arms. New businesses as large as this will need employees. Will they come from other businesses or will they come from elsewhere? Who knows. But, and this is the point, they will create more jobs initially than now exist, and with any luck, the city will grow around those jobs rather than simply robbing them from other sources. If that happens, then the natural progression of business successes and failures will go on. Try looking at the whole picture and then put forth a rational, factual reason for your position. That's all anyone can ask.

May 10, 2013 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Poor leadership

Your point is probably valid, to a certain extent. But I disagree, vehemently, with your conclusion.

I, for one, want to live in Lawrence for many reasons, most of which revolve around the size of the town, the convenience of nearly everything from nearly anywhere, the beauty of this particular portion of our state, the cultural diversity evident in the town, and the simple fact that this town is quite a bit more laid back than most larger metropolises (metropoli?).

To conclude that I should move because a business wants to locate here, or to deny the business the opportunity to provide services, and jobs, and tax income is pretty short-sighted. Menards, by itself, is not going to destroy the "character of the city". In fact, with a larger tax base and an increase in employment income, the city would have even more opportunity to fund exactly those things that make Lawrence my choice as a long-term residence.

Should industrial/retail growth be controlled by the politicians? Sure, but only insofar as the government should establish and maintain property boundries and rules to keep the various types of industry and businesses from encroaching on the very residential areas that make this an inviting town in which to live. And, it seems to me, the Menard's plan does nothing to distract from the quality of life in Lawrence.

May 10, 2013 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: KU’s loss

OK.

Side one: Shortsidedness in the KU administrative gallery.

Side two: Ku loses a chance to be a leader in this burgeoning opportunity.

Satisfied? Or are you implying something personal about the lte's subject? Mudslinging without supporting information? I don't know, but it soews sound as if you (think you) know something that might be germane to the discussion. If so, just say it. If not, don't say anything.

May 8, 2013 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

State officials working overtime to keep up with concealed-carry permits

Non-sequitor deluxe. Care to try the race card next?

May 3, 2013 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Police cite 27 motorists in Monday night seat-belt enforcement

And the government reserves the right to use its judgement, which is based on more than your individual likes or dislikes.

"I base the decision on how dangerous the trip is." Well, I understand that, but I believe your "dangerousness" level might be out of whack, in that the majority of deaths in car accidents happen at speeds of under 30 miles per hour. Don't take my word. Google it. The facts are that, even in highway situations, the drivers have had time to react to the accident situation and slow down.

The real issue for you and those of your ideals is that you don't want someone to tell you what to do, isn't it? And American law has, over and over, been held to be that which protects the greater number of citizens (or property) with the least possible intervention. I, for one, applaud the law that, in this case, doew exactly what it is suppposed to do. I think you should, too.

May 2, 2013 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )