Brownback wants to examine mental health services

It is sad that it takes a national tragedy to get our Governor to even acknowledge that there is a need for mental health services. It is not long ago that he was leading the charge in our "race for the bottom" by cutting funding for mental health services.

http://wellcommons.com/groups/wellnes...

Now the Governor wants to look toward the mental health system as a root cause of this tragedy.

It is well known that persons with mental illnesses are overrepresented in jail and prison populations. It is also well known that mental illnesses can often be effectively managed within the community and that in doing so, crimes can be prevented. To do so requires adequate funding for case management and treatment, including therapy and medication. In doing so, we stand a chance at preventing not only a horrific tragedy such as the one that happened in Connecticut, but also at preventing the personal tragedies that occur almost daily, but which garner much less media attention.

December 21, 2012 at 7:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: That’s enough

"Ban mental illness! Make mental illness illegal!"

So, let me make sure that I understand your position. As I understand it, you are now asserting that mental illness is a choice and that we should pass a law making it illegal for people to choose to be mentally ill?

December 21, 2012 at 6:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: That’s enough

Yes, I am talking school shootings. 56 school shooting deaths in the USA during the same timeframe that you cite 23.

Your arguments are without merit. The fact is that semiautomatic firearms with large capacity magazines are more deadly than knives and axes.

December 20, 2012 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Kansas closes roads because of storm

Been commuting in a front wheel drive subcompact for over 30 years, even on days when schools and state offices are closed. I have never been stuck, never been in a ditch, and never had a problem. Thanks for your concern though.

December 20, 2012 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: That’s enough

Yes. I also noticed that the overall numbers of deaths are much lower, over the period of time that you cited, even though China is a much larger, more populous country.

The simple fact is that semiautomatic firearms with large capacity magazines provide an efficient way to inflict deadly injuries on larger numbers of persons in a shorter amount of time than do knives, axes, and other hand tools.

December 20, 2012 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: That’s enough

Yes, I noticed the "....latest one happening in china near the same time as the one in conn.[sic]"

I clearly noticed that all of the victims survived.

December 20, 2012 at 6:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: That’s enough

Although I deplore citing Wikipedia, I will do so since that is the source that you have used. As nearly as I can tell from their website, during the same time frame that you cited, school shootings in the US claimed the lives of 56 US citizens, not counting the suicides of some of the perpetrators.

Comparing this to the 20 deaths over a three year period in China, a much larger nation than the US, would seem to indicate that the victims of a mass attack by an assailant using knives and axes are more likely to survive than if the attack is by way of semi automatic firearms with high capacity magazines.

Case in point, and again, according to the material that you cited:

"On 14 December 2012, a 36 year-old villager in the village of Chenpeng, Henan Province, stabbed 23 children and an elderly woman at the village's primary school as children were arriving for classes. The attacker was restrained at the school, and later arrested. ALL OF THE VICTIMS SURVIVED...." I am sure that many parents would have preferred this outcome.

December 19, 2012 at 7:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun access

"Right now to leagally [sic] own a gun you have 1) a waiting period 2) background check"

Not true.

These restrictions only apply to new gun sales through FFL licensed dealers. The resale of firearms between private parties is not regulated by federal law, and in many states [such as Kansas] is not regulated by state law. There is no requirement for a background check, nor for a waiting period for such a sale, nor is there any requirement that the seller verify the identity of the purchaser.

Figuring out a way for a "bad guy" to get a firearm did not really require much thought. At least 40% of gun sales in the US have no verification of the qualifications of the purchaser to buy the firearm.

December 18, 2012 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Opinion: Pledge fuels cynicism about Congress

I guess that it is a matter of perception. My perception is that a minority of radical far right wing conservatives imposed their agenda on the majority in the country for four years, through misinformation and economic blackmail, and that our duly elected President lacked the political will to make gains on the progressive agenda.

Now the radical conservative minority is no longer able to impose their will on the majority without incurring further damage on their brand.

It is not a matter of "....[sticking] it to the Republicans." The issue is that we had an election where two very different views of the future were offered, and the voters decided on the future that was articulated by President Obama.

December 10, 2012 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Opinion: Pledge fuels cynicism about Congress

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but the facts support that the responsibility for the fiscal cliff rests squarely with the GOP. The fact remains that the fiscal cliff was caused by the Republicans engaging in economic blackmail because they felt that they held a political upper hand. They gambled and lost. The President did not ask them to take the US economy hostage. The GOP did that on their own. They were so convinced that they would unseat the President that they risked being placed in a position where any leverage that they might have would become irrelevant. That has now happened.

I am sure that there will be a compromise. It is just that the definition of compromise that has been used by the Republicans will likely no longer be acceptable. Up to this point, the GOP has blocked virtually every initiative the President has taken and they have vilified, through a steady campaign of misinformation, the accomplishments the President has managed to achieve. From the start of his administration, the GOP set as their primary goal to unseat the President rather than trying to accomplish anything postive. In short, they took a firm "my way or the highway" attitude for the entire first four years of the Obama presidency.

So now the conservatives are upset because Obama is not sitting around the the conference table singing Kumbaya with Boehner.

As it relates to the debt ceiling, Obama would be a fool to leave that on the table again. That issue should be a hard and fast nonnegotiable position. If he leaves that on the table, it is predictable that the Republicans will try to take the economy hostage once again. We are just as well off to go over the cliff as to risk allowing that.

As to the proposal for stimulus dollars, there are people who are upset about it. People that are upset about the proposal are mostly part of a rapidly shrinking minority. It seems that without millions of dollars being spent in the media to vilify and defame the President and his policies, people are actually understanding that another round of stimulus would likely cause a marked increase in growth, ultimately paying for itself. I realize that the GOP is keenly interested in debt reduction [albeit only when the President is a Democrat], but elections have consequences, and this is what they now must deal with. If they elect to go over the cliff, we can only hope that the electorate will remember in 2014.

December 10, 2012 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )