Comment history

Promoters of a day center for homeless families in east Lawrence neighborhood seek city approval

I attended the meeting. My primary impression is that this sounds like a good program but that the people promoting it here, though their hearts are certainly in the right place, haven't thoroughly thought this out and considered its impact on the neighborhood. It seems that what they expected from this neighborhood meeting was for everyone to welcome the center, no questions asked. The main reason I think this is that, as far as I could see, none of the people advocating the issue appeared to be taking any notes listing the many valid concerns expressed by neighbors at the meeting. Isn't Mr. Seitz a former business professor? Doesn't he know how to properly conduct a meeting? Someone from their side should have been taking minutes; the fact that nobody appeared to be indicates disregard for neighborhood concerns. If someone was writing notes and I just didn't see it, I apologize.Also, lest the people of the neighborhood all be branded as NIMBYs, someone did ask Mr. Seitz if he had considered locating the center in his neighborhood. No, he said, he lives in the country out by Eudora. I've lived in the country, and the people I've known either lived in the country because they grew up there or because they have made an active decision to live in peace and quiet without a lot of close neighbors. You have to admit, it smells a little funny that Mr. Seitz lives out in the country but is advocating moving 14 people plus a director plus volunteers into a home in what is already a fairly dense neighborhood, i.e. few people have large yards or an abundance of space between houses.While I've never really been homeless (depending on your definition), I did grow up in a single parent household where my mom worked full time and there were times when we were on government assistance, so I don't think I'm living on another planet as far as this issue goes. I just don't know that this house is the right place to be day-sheltering four families. Perhaps two?

August 8, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Promoters of a day center for homeless families in east Lawrence neighborhood seek city approval

This is no doubt a well-intentioned and necessary program. A couple of things to note, though:One, I walk by 1501 RI every day and this house has been on the market for sale for a looooooong time. I wonder why (overpriced, terrible condition...)? I have seen squirrels running in and out of the holes in the siding.Two, the article doesn't say that the house will not become an overnight shelter; the spokesman says there are not plans for it to become an overnight shelter--big difference.Three, there is only one supervisor on hand? Who will be watching the kids while the parent(s) are doing laundry, looking for work and housing on-line, etc.? Maybe they could staff it, at least partially, with interns from KUs social welfare school.Third, is there an age limit for the "children?" Will there be seventeen year old kids hanging out on the porch? Are clients going to be locked in during the day, which would seem to make the house more like a min. security correctional facility than a day shelter?I plan to attend the neighborhood meeting tonight; it should be interesting.(If it matters, I am a 'rev' to the same degree as is 'rev. horton heat)

August 7, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Burrito King hit with $1,250 health department fine

A friend of mine found (i.e. bit into) a Gummy Bear inside his burrito; don't know if that's an actual health violation.

July 2, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Space Case: Wayne Coyne transports the Flaming Lips' extraterrestrial sounds back to Wakarusa

Uh, their first album had a picture of Wayne's brother (I think) partially concealed by a curtain and holding a skull. You must be thinking of some other album.

June 6, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

State abortion rate decreases

quote:"We're all human, we all have limitations."Wow, my logic is seriously flawed?? The crux of the biscuit is "we are all human"--do you get it? Your standards are so malleable that 'human' is defined as whatever you say it is. If you want to kill it, it's not human. Embryonic? Quadraplegic? Severe eczema? One last question, and this is for the mink coat, the toaster oven and the trip to Vegas: at what week does your fetus become 'human' and have his/her right to live outweigh the mother/m.d.'s desire to dispose of him/her?Since this has clearly dwindled down to just you and me, fellow human, I say over, out and peace to you.

March 31, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State abortion rate decreases

A fetus at week 6 is much, much less a human than one at wee 32

Okay, how about 31 weeks? I have a good friend whose healthy daughter was born at 26 weeks. There is nothing emotional about arguing in favor of life. I've lost count of how many of my pointed issues you've sidestepped. I know you're not a doctor, but, seriously, could you watch an ultrasound of a healthy, moving 12-week old fetus, then personally turn around and cut it to pieces or poison it because the mother doesn't want it? Yes or no, could you?

March 30, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State abortion rate decreases

I haven't said anything about preventing unwanted pregnancies because that's not the topic; the topic is whether or not abortion, any abortion, constitutes taking a human life.
A comment above says:
"I believe abortions should be reserved for rape, incest, and dangerous medical situations. And there's no real reason for late-term abortions, IMHO"

Again, I ask, if there's nothing morally wrong with abortion, why should it be 'reserved' for special circumstances? If it does not involve the taking of a human life, why shouldn't it be readily available to any female under any circumstance? You haven't addressed that, other than to say it should be legal so it can be regulated--that doesn't resolve the issue of whether or not a human is being medically deprived of his/her life. If the 'fetus' is not a baby until he/she is delivered, what is wrong with late-term abortions? Why does it matter when the mother, as you so nicely put it, wants something taken out of her body?
Lastly, r.e. "Nothing you or I can do will change it," sure sounds like something a well-intentioned defeatist would have said during the civil rights struggle. As I noted above, my opinion on the matter has changed, as did the opinion of "Roe" in Roe v. Wade (Norma McCorvey).

March 30, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State abortion rate decreases

"It matters because every medical procedure involves a certain amount of risk. Why take such risks, if they can be prevented?"

What medical procedure involves more risk than abortion? It is generally fatal to the baby. You actually compare abortion to an appendectomy? An "unwanted" child is analogous to an inflamed appendix? I'll assume I'm one of the "rabid extremists" (name-calling is always wrong unless it's absolutely necessary to save the life of an endangered argument), but if saying it's wrong to kill babies and to leave the decision about "quality of life" issues in hands such as yours makes me "rabid," well, I guess I'll just keep foaming at the mouth until they tie me to a tree and shoot me like Ole Yeller.
Listen, I was "pro-choice" once upon a time but I was compelled to change my position after seeing all the p-c arguments are as substantial as wet cardboard. I used to agree with the "if you're anti-abortion you should adopt 12 babies" and all that, but that is essentially saying "if you don't do what I believe is right I'll do something you don't think is right"--why do two wrongs make a right where abortion is concerned? The bottom line is this: I could not say with any certainty that abortion does not equal killing a baby, and after seeing my baby so active at 13 weeks, I would not have called her anything but a baby. If abortion is killing a baby, then it's wrong, completely independent of any person's or government's decision to adopt, provide universal health care,etc. Those are separate issues from whether it is right or wrong to kill what at the very least is a "potential" baby.

March 30, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

State abortion rate decreases

Just one more question for pro-abortion people who maintain that abortion should be legal, safe and rare--if there's nothing wrong with abortion, why should it be rare, and, if there is something wrong with abortion, why should it be legal? And if we should be happy that the rate is going down (which, agreed, we should), why? If it's nothing more than a perfectly legal medical procedure, what does it matter if 1 or 10,000 babies are being aborted?

March 29, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State abortion rate decreases

I saw an ultrasound picture of my daughter at 13 weeks; she was definitely a human. When you personally are ready to start performing abortions, especially after taking a good look at, say, a 13 week ultrasound, and I'm talking the real deal where you can see the baby moving his/her limbs and the heart beating and see his/her little skeleton, when you take a good look at a few of those and you're still willing to cut that baby up and suck him/her out with a vacuum hose, then go to it and may God have mercy on you. It might be easy to sit there and say "oh, it's just a fetus" when you've never seen a live ultrasound, but the baby is moving. No matter what medical term you wish to use, it's a baby.
You know the bumper sticker that says "Against Abortion? Don't Have One"? Try "For Abortion? Let's See You Perform One."

March 29, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )