Advertisement

jhawkinsf

Follow

Comment history

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

Your olive branch is gratefully acknowledged and is offered in return. Peace.

October 9, 2013 at 11:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

City moves forward on providing loan to homeless shelter

How does this decision fit into the oft stated narrative that the city commission is nothing more than a shill for the chamber of commerce?

October 9, 2013 at 10:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Felony required?

At the federal level, there is the option of being married but filing individually. So to avoid the conflict, simply file your federal taxes as individuals. (However, I do believe that once you do choose to file as a married couple, you cannot then go back to filing as an individual. So you can't keep going back and forth, year to year).

Of course, there is a very good reason to file together, that being that there are tax benefits to doing so. You will be forced to forgo those benefits. Which brings us back to the equal protections that we all should have. I agree with those above who have said you should thumb your nose at the Kansas law and file exactly as you choose to file at the federal level. Let those buffoons in Topeka defend their discriminatory ideas in a court of law. They will lose.

October 9, 2013 at 8:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

I too gave up on this site more than a month ago, after being a frequent commentator. I gave up because of the lack of civility expressed by far too many. Eventually, I became part of that far too many number and didn't like it one bit. Each day I would begin posting with a positive outlook only to see it devolve into divisiveness and bitterness.

All too often, anonymous forums such as these bring out the worst in people and frankly, I haven't missed commenting in the month I've been gone. That said, I won't be coming back when names are required. I own a small business and can't afford to lose any customers just because someone thinks I'm too liberal or too conservative, just because I support one cause and not another, just because I vote one way and not another. So to whatever extent concerns such as that and other concerns have in controlling content, that will be a side effect as well.

Sincere regards to all.

October 9, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to reimpose work requirement for food assistance

I'd have less of a problem if I didn't see "Help Wanted" signs all about town and then see the same faces of the unemployed. Target is hiring, so is Home Depot (their sign is in both English and Spanish). And no, working there is not sadistic. It's entry level. I worked at McDonalds on 23rd. St. It wasn't fun, but it wasn't sadistic either. It was a job. It was an honest job. And it was a job that lasted until something better came along. Sorry guys, I really don't see anything wrong or immoral with jobs like that for people like that, by which I mean, people like me. People with few marketable skills.

Chootspa - You frequently opine about issues involving education and high tech. Why don't you advocate that those industries hire people without the appropriate skills, train them for the work, all the while paying them prevailing wages? I'd be curious as to what profession you're in and what they are doing to solve these issues.

September 5, 2013 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to reimpose work requirement for food assistance

I advocated for a system that allows for a steady, reliable and affordable food supply for everyone, the exact opposite of starving, and much better than the system that preceded it. I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it's better than any other system out there.

September 5, 2013 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to reimpose work requirement for food assistance

Actually, I've given that very thought considerable time. (Very perceptive, chootspa and I mean that sincerely). Yes, my experiences did change me, right down to whatever it is deepest inside me. (As a distinctly non-religious person, I'm reluctant to use the term "soul").

That said, those things I experienced, I experienced. Those things I saw, I saw. If I were to suddenly suffer a case of amnesia, perhaps my "soul" would be lighter. But that would be less honest.

And if I sound condescending, I apologize. It was not my intent. But if it's the truth that bothers you, at least the truth as experienced by one formerly in the field, then perhaps you will consider another point of view, with an open mind.

September 5, 2013 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas to reimpose work requirement for food assistance

Well, to be fair, I did give a source that said income tax cheating was between 30%-40%, but that person didn't like the source while you choose to ignore it. Oh well.

But let's look at your other complaint, that being workers in the field dispute my assertions. Fair enough. Maybe things have changed. I'll concede that possibility. But I'd like for you and them to consider another possibility. And that is one of conflict of interest. Do you recall the very early days of the Bush administration, post inauguration but pre-9/11? The Vice-President, along with a group of oil company executives set out behind closed doors to establish what our energy policies should be. Do we have a problem with that? Of course we do. That being conflict of interest. Was there actual conflict of interest, or perceived conflict of interest, or potential conflict of interest? Well, we don't know since Bush invoked executive privilege. The point is though that when there is such conflict of interest, real or potential, a healthy dose of skepticism is, for want of a better word, healthy. It should exist when arms manufacturers testify before Congress that we need new and better weapons. It should exist when recovery experts say that addiction is a disease and that relapse is part of the process. And the skepticism should exist when the social safety net evolves into a trampoline, where the person never really hits their bottom and they are always picked back up.

I recall shortly after leaving social services and buying my first restaurant, I employed many illegal immigrants. Not because I set out to do that, but there was no real way to not do that, short of discriminating against all foreigners. Today, we have sophisticated methods of determining the truth. But that doesn't mean the hiring has stopped. Maybe social workers today have elevated themselves and their industry beyond things like conflict of interest, beyond human nature. Maybe. Me, I remain skeptical, of Bush's energy policies, of Brownback's court appointments, of the military industrial complex, of the social safety net. Or as John Lennon said, "I just believe in me."

September 5, 2013 at 1:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous