krishtalka (Kris Krishtalka)

Follow

Comment history

Your Turn: U.S. candidates must face the facts

Since 2001, about half of the 440,000 gun deaths are indeed suicides, which, as Mr. Cummings writes, Congress prevented the CDC from studying because ignorance is apparently better than knowledge in solving problems. In any case, that still leaves 220,000 non-suicide gun deaths (and candidate do-nothing condolences) vs ~3500 terrorism deaths (and candidate promises to bomb "them" into oblivion, or lock down "their" neighborhoods, or shut our borders to "them").

May 6, 2016 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your Turn: U.S. candidates must face the facts

Mr. Fellows, thank you for your comment. I said "Theoretically, non-stop politicking ... allows fools to expose themselves." The key word, is "theoretically." Ergo, "It's our fault if we vote for them."

May 5, 2016 at 11:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your Turn: Candidates don’t really love America

Response to Mr. Cain and Mr. Smith: The focus of the op-ed piece is respect for U.S. science. Unlike President Obama and Hillary Clinton, the candidates discussed are climate-change deniers, thereby summarily denying the comprehensive research, findings and recommendations of the U.S. Department of Defense, NASA and NOAA.

January 28, 2016 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Wasted money

Dear Mr. Penny.
Thank you for your letter in response the May 1 op-ed. Following are links to all the Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry, Physics and Economic Sciences and the discoveries that won them the prize, from DNA and protein synthesis, to subatomic particles and artificial intelligence, to computers, graphene and nanotechnologies, to macroeconomics and market forces, and hundreds more.

Virtually all of these discoveries make possible some aspect of your day-to-day life and health, were made by these winners in academic science laboratories and environments, and were funded by what you term as "wasteful" dollars. The Nobel Prize in Medicine adds many more discoveries to the list. So would a Nobel Prize in Engineering or Biology, if they were given.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands of science discoveries at universities that don't win a Novel Prize, but are critical to our existence, ways of life, and understanding the universe we live in and the Earth we live on. As important are the arts and humanities that help us make sense of this knowledge and apply it wisely.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize...

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize...

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prize...

May 19, 2014 at 11:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Historic horse inspires Mexican artist's installation-in-progress at Spencer Museum

Ms. Shepherd, Comanche is NOT "the sole survivor of the Battle of Little Big Horn," merely the sole survivor on the U.S. Cavalry side, which lost the battle. Many Sioux, who won the battle, survived. Please print a correction. The KU Natural History Museum is pleased to be collaborating with the Spencer Museum of Art and Diego Teo on this project and we invite audiences to see it unfold in both venues. Leonard Krishtalka, Director, Biodiversity Institute and Natural History Museum.

October 6, 2013 at 5:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Nature loves a female breadwinner

Tanzer: No one knows what science or nature Erickson is referring to, apparently not even Erickson himself! And no one on the Lou Dobbs show seemed to care---apparently they don't have fact-checking.

June 17, 2013 at 7:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What kind of pope should we hope for?

Thanks for the dialogue. The op-ed is pointedly future-oriented: 1. learn from the mistakes of the past not to repeat them and to lead the church into the future, i.e., exercise the moral authority to clean the future Church of its criminal cover-ups and deniers of the truth; (2) let the Church be an outspoken, moral force in sustaining the planetary environments into the future---the animals, plants, microbes, oceans, lakes, rivers, and landscapes that the Church reveres as God's creation.

March 16, 2013 at 11:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Science should be part of presidential debate

Rep. Johnson was joking, using the humor as a metaphor for how the stationing of the all the marines and their families on Guam would threaten the delicate environmental sustainability of the island---which he explained the post session interviews.

September 11, 2012 at 6:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Knowledge punched by pundits in 2011

Thanks Doug. I could not have said it better. I hope that the electorate will expect their presidential candidates, and their representatives at the federal, state and local levels to demand and rely on the best science to solve the complex challenges of our current and future times.

January 3, 2012 at 7:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Knowledge punched by pundits in 2011

Thanks George for the comment, but, just to clarify the dialogue, the op-ed was not about increasing spending on higher education. It was about
(a) not taking the shortsighted view of restricting higher ed investment to alleged "jobs disciplines" (Gov. Scott);
(b) not dissing or dismissing responsible, established science and science education on the basis of a pundit's or politician's personal beliefs or election posturing or discomfort with the facts (Bachmann, Santorum, Perry); and
(c) not making deliberately irresponsible social science conclusions about the causes of reprehensible human behavior by avoiding a much larger history of that reprehensible behavior, which instantly disproves the conclusions (Cal Thomas).

January 3, 2012 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous