Comment history

Federal government considering official investigation into legality of BCS

Yeah, that Orrin Hatch, the one who is pushing this, is another one of those typical big government Republicans who want government to run everything.

January 29, 2010 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Snow-removal citations

Love it.

For those of you saying don't pay, that's great. Just don't complain when you get that bench warrant issued for your arrest. At that point, you transformed a fine for laziness into jail time.

Ironically, it looks like most of the complaints are from law and order types.

January 29, 2010 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Former KU student faces local charges in 2003 bank robbery cases

If convicted of a single aggravated robbery for the robbery in which he used a gun, he is subject to a minimum of 206 months imprisonment (aggravated robbery is a severity level three person felony and his two prior robberies place him in criminal history "B" -- this assumes no other criminal history). At most he could earn 15% good time, so he would have to serve a minimum of 175.1 months before he would be eligible for postrelease supervision. Kansas does not have a parole system and uses a sentencing guidelines grid (K.S.A. 21-4704 for non drug felonies). How is that revolving door?

The LJW used 247 months, which is the high sentence for a severity level three person felony (using criminal history "A").

June 24, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Many Kansans throw 'TEA parties,' but Lawrencians not among them

Akreed represents the typical reading comprehension problem demonstrated by ODS. Let me try and break it down for him.

The administration of the last eight years created a serious economic problem that has made it impossible to balance the budget. The so-called "TAX" events sponsored by the Kochs (who fund American's for Prosperity in order to reduce taxes for themselves) present no meaningful solution to these problems.

I believe that Jersey_Girl is trying to say that she does not want higher taxes, but realizes that there is no other meaningful solution to the problem. And ignoring the problem is only making it worse.

By the way, you can dig a hole deeper to get rid of the hole. You dig a little deeper and instead of throwing the dirt out of the hole, you put it to one side so that you can get out of the hole. Once out of the hole, you can fill in the hole. If you need for me to explain how this analogy applies to the economy, let me know.

Have a super day.

April 15, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Police investigating shots fired outside 23rd Street Brewery

The National Pan-Hellenic Council (NHPC) is an umbrella type organization, like the National Pan-Hellenic Conference or North American Interfraternity Conference. The NHPC is made up of historically African-American Greek-letter fraternities and sororities. The National Pan-Hellenic Conference is made up of women's sororities. The North American Interfraternity Conference is made up of men's fraternities.

December 12, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU student killed in car crash was under the influence of alcohol, report says

compmd:The article did not state he was over the legal limit. It simply stated he was "under the influence." I would ask the author of this article, Jesse Fray, to please clear this up if that information is available.It is common to report that any detectable b.a.c. indicates that one is "under the influence." In fact, NHTSA statistics on alcohol related vehicle fatalities are even more deceptive -- if anyone involved in a fatal accident, even if it is a passenger or pedestrian, had a detectable b.a.c., then the fatality is reported as "alcohol related," even if the actual driver involved had no detectable b.a.c. whatsoever.

October 7, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Drinking age

gr:How is it a red herring or apples and oranges? Your argument is based upon a lack of health benefits. The same argument applied to junk food would require it to be restricted -- it has no health benefit. It causes high costs to society. Your argument is that alcohol is good for no one, so it follows that it should not be allowed for anyone, not even those over 21. Why should age 21 make a difference if our concern is for the health implications. I'm sorry if you cannot see this, but if that is your argument, junk food should be illegal.If you cannot read the information provided by the Mayo Clinic in the link I provided, we are done. You have no credibility.I have stated my point is that the issue should be considered rather than dismissed out of hand. I'm sorry you cannot understand that.

September 2, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Drinking age

gr:With respect to the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, obviously you don't keep up on health related news. Here is a quick link from a little known clinic on the subject matter: provides you with an example of the health benefits of an age regulated product.Now, with respect to the remainder of your response, I don't think you understand what I meant by fallacy. It does not simply mean a falsehood. I meant a logical fallacy.Now, you complain about the junk food analogy. First, you fail to cite a health benefit to eating either of my cited examples. You bring up the lack of an age restriction -- or what is known as a straw man (look it up in a logic text) -- presumably because you have no answer to me.In any event, junk food such as a Big Mac or Whopper causes more detriment to one's health than benefit. The fact that there is no age limit is irrelevant. Under your belief system, it seems that you would advocate a 21 year old age restriction on the consumption of junk food, because it saves lives.I do not understand why you ask about restricting something with health benefits by age. If you are implying that a Big Mac has health benefits, then I'm sure you advocate legalizing heroin -- it has pain killing effects that can be beneficial.As to your statements about why the drinking age was increased, it was a knee-jerk reaction to the problem of alcohol related fatalities. The reason to consider lowering the drinking age, which I did not necessarily advocate, would be if the costs outweigh the benefits. Obviously there is no crystal ball, or else legislators would know if the reasons for raising the age would be correct. That is why it should be studied before action is taken.

August 27, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Drinking age

gr and redwaggoner:Logical fallacies abound with your arguments -- starting with redwaggoner's slippery slope transformation of mom_of_three's argument that "eligibility for compulsory military service should also make one eligible for the same privileges as others" into the ludicrous "you must want to get your kids loaded and force them to drive".Similarly, gr asks for a good reason to drink alcohol. Aside from health benefits from moderate alcohol consumption, the easiest response is along to utilize the same form of argument and to take gr's argument to the extreme -- name one good reason to allow people to consume McDonald's Big Macs or Burger King Whoppers. The real question should be what are the benefits, if any, of a 21 year old drinking age, and do they outweigh the total costs (transfer of law enforcement resources that could be used elsewhere, loss of productivity and future income due to convictions, loss of freedom to citizens, etc.) of alcohol use by those aged 18-20.

August 26, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sebelius 'stunned' by energy bill process

Roy W. Spencer - reputable scientist? Intelligent design advocate.
(and if you don't like wikipedia, do the search in for Roy Spencer and read his article "Faith-Based Evolution")

March 7, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )