Comment history

KU journalism professor Guth placed on leave as school reviews comment he made on Twitter on shootings

Given how you yourself characterize his comments it is more likely that whatever the students are getting is an upgrade.

September 20, 2013 at 12:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Senate Majority Leader Bruce calls on KU to fire journalism professor over Twitter comment on Navy Yard shooting

I can't disagree with Mr. Guth more. I am a little disappointed that he can't show a little intellectual honesty and admit that his statements were in fact wishful of harm on others; "Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters". Beyond that his words were ghoulish and his beliefs are misguided. I am discouraged that someone who is in a position of influence within the School of Journalism at the University of Kansas would take such a simplistic approach to such a complex issue. The 2nd amendment is as clear in its protection of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms as the first amendment is in its protection of his right to say what he wishes in the media and at the time of his choosing, without the threat of interference or imprisonment by the government. That being said an employer may terminate an employee for behavior that brings detriment to the organization. If they believe that his presence at the University, in light of his comments, is more detrimental than his value to the University they have all of the right in the world to terminate their relationship with him. That being said I absolutely do not advocate his termination. I would however never spend a dime of my money sending my children to the KU School of journalism.

September 20, 2013 at 9:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Education commissioner to respond to Kansas GOP resolution on Common Core standards

Simple answer is neither. Both are prone to their own bias. All should take the time to educate themselves and make up their own minds. There is entirely too much follow the leader going on with regard to political issues. Both sides rely on hyperbole, misinformation and the ignorance of the general populous in order to manipulate the political landscape. The solutions are to educate yourself and for the government to stop interfering with choice in education.

September 19, 2013 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence wants property to house multimillion dollar police headquarters

If it is going to be done then a new building makes the only sense. The use is too unique to try to retrofit it into an existing structure. As for location, I believe building it on the current site's parking lot makes the most sense. Then tear down the old building once completed and turn it into parking. What else is the old facility going to be good for?

September 9, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Dangerous fork

NO! Are we kidding? There is no lesser evil here. Both sides of this civil war are evil to the core. At least the Assad regime has been less than anti-American. In the absence of a pro-American or at least a pro-Liberty side to this war there is no place for US military intervention. If we bomb them what will actually be accomplished? We run the risk of collateral damage for no gain. Lastly, every politician has promised no "boots on the ground". If this intervention isn't worth risking American lives then it is not in our interests to take part. The President is flat wrong and his "red line" shows what a foreign policy neophyte he really is.

September 6, 2013 at 12:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback's office redacts names of Court of Appeals candidates from his schedule

The public has no right to know who is applying for public jobs. Until they become a candidate they are still private citizens. The veil of privacy extends to them until such time as they accept a job or an appointment. That is the case with any State job, applicants names are not a matter of public record.
As for who decides who the best candidates is, that is up to the guy that ran for and won the election for Governor. The decision as to the best candidate is a matter of discretion and you clearly would choose anyone but who the Governor chose so what can you really offer to this situation. It will be up to the duly elected legislature to consent to the appointment or not. That’s the way our system works.

August 28, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback's office redacts names of Court of Appeals candidates from his schedule

The reason the names are exempted is because of privacy laws pertaining to those applicants. In order to get around that the candidates would have to agree to have their names released. Until they become appointees they are entitled to that privacy and you and I don't have a right to know that they applied. If one of them felt they were more qualified and wished to dispute the appointment they have all the right in the world to come forward publicly on their own. There is nothing stopping that. You just want to embarrass those candidates in order to hurt the Governor.

August 28, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback's office redacts names of Court of Appeals candidates from his schedule

Thanks to Scott for getting the facts about the law into this article. It would have been a more accurate headline if it read; Brownback’s office redacts names of Court of Appeals candidates pursuant to law.

August 28, 2013 at 3 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback's office redacts names of Court of Appeals candidates from his schedule

"...individually identifiable records pertaining to employees or applicants for employment, except that this exemption shall not apply to the names, positions, salaries or actual compensation employment contracts or employment-related contracts or agreements and lengths of service of officers and employees of public agencies once they are employed as such."
Everyone here so far act as though he has a choice here. He is following the letter and the intent of the Open Records act to the letter. The law is very clearly stated. These records are not public, including the names of applicants, until such time as one is employed by the State. This isn't about transparency or politics. He is not President Obama who ignores laws he doesn't like or tries to create laws he hasn't the authority to create. The candidates that applied or were nominated for this position have the right to their privacy. How would you like your current boss to know that you are looking for a new job? Anyone trying to make this a political issue in the face of facts are hacks and can't be taken seriously, ever.

August 28, 2013 at 2:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Appeals court knocks down Montana law similar to Kansas' Second Amendment Protection Act

Never mind his willingness to completely disregard his oath of office where he failed to enforce existing immigration laws and went so far as to instruct immigration agencies and agents not to do their jobs or making recess appointments to the NLRB when the Senate wasn't in recess. What about his willingness to ignore the Affordable Care law that he signed. He behaves as though he has latitude in implementing a law where no such latitude exists. The executive branch is responsible for enforcing and defending all laws whether they approve of them or not. There is no discretion here. Discretion is for monarchies and I thought that was exactly what this country was founded against?

August 28, 2013 at 11:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )