sunflower-voter (Kate Rogge)

Follow

Comment history

Your Turn: Longtime resident concerned for Kansas

I don't understand your comment. Could you restate it, please?

March 26, 2015 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your Turn: Longtime resident concerned for Kansas

Maybe they don't want to own Kansas?

March 24, 2015 at 9:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Group asks what will make planned 9th Street Corridor project a success

Well, Fred, this isn't being done for our benefit, and we're the ones who stand to lose. It's a plan to connect Doug Compton's and Tony K's new developments at either end of a seven block stretch of 9th Street that is working just fine for us now. You think anyone doesn't already know how to walk or ride their bikes seven blocks from Massachusetts to Delaware streets?

Of course the city will change zoning for developers (although they're vague about that now), and of course the city won't put a dime into fixing 9th Street without wanting tax money back from their investment. Which means forcing out residents and small businesses along the new "arts corridor." But, hey, too bad. Right?

March 24, 2015 at 8:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bill lists grounds for impeaching Kansas high court justices

Exactly. Who suggested it's time we storm the castle? I'm ready to go. At least people in Wisconsin stood up in protest before they lost everything.

Can anyone remember a time anything like this in Kansas? The Kochs have bought the Kansas governor and the majority of Republican legislators, and they are going to ride Kansas to its grave unless we can figure out some way to stop them. We can't wait for the next election.

March 24, 2015 at 7:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Equal opportunity hard to achieve

Yes, thank you. I do see that this is a compelling argument, and I can agree with some of it, as well. But before we cut current and future generations loose to fulfill their own destinies, I'd like us to agree that another fundamental American right is to receive an excellent public education. Not a trade school. Not a private or parochial school. Free, excellent, public school funded by the State with public tax money because we want all of our fellow citizens equipped to sustain themselves and contribute to our common good.

Everyone fit may be left to fly or flounder as adults, but everyone had better be getting a first class public education, the vote, and access, if needed, to government-funded food, shelter, and medical care until they are adults. I don't support the idea that selective breeding has somehow justified unequal opportunity for American children. That's incompatible with American freedom.

March 23, 2015 at 1:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Equal opportunity hard to achieve

And, as night follows day, it's God bless conservative Republicans for figuring out how self-interest, selective breeding, and trickle-down opportunity is God's plan for all freedom-loving Americans. It's like Russ Douthat's one song that all women should be married and have babies. It's what God wants, eh boys?

March 23, 2015 at 12:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Public interest

Yes, I agree. Until then, however, we'd better make sure that viable alternative exists and has been proven to work as fixed digital records before we jettison what does work right now. And I don't see any archival standard that protects public notice records except the distribution of public notices printed in newspapers.

Ask yourself, why are we considering changing the form of public notices without a viable (fixed format) alternative? What is gained, and by whom? If cost is the driver, why not just pass a note from hand to hand until we think everyone in town has seen it?

March 22, 2015 at 11:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Public interest

Well, my earlier post doesn't really apply, as you still must go to the government entity to receive certified government records. What a printed newspaper provides (as opposed to an online newspaper) is a permanent and dated public notice of government activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspape...

Web content is mutable and may be altered or erased. Print content is fixed and multiple copies of that fixed content are distributed among the public affected by local, state, and national government actions (and retained by public archives as records of those actions). It would be impossible, let alone impossibly expensive, for underfunded and understaffed public archives to gather, print, and store all applicable webprints instead of newspaper public notices.

Local, state, and national newspapers print notices of local, state, and national government actions (and are kept by local, state, and national archives) so that we, the public, know what government actions have been performed by what government offices. With that public information, any of us may access all or part of government records as defined by applicable freedom of information acts (FOIA). In Kansas, many printed newspapers (e.g., Lawrence Journal World, The Wichita Eagle, Topeka Capital-Journal, etc.) print notice of local, county, and state government actions in order to inform the public of those government actions. "An open and transparent government is essential to the democratic process." (see https://ag.ks.gov/legal-services/open... ). A fundamental requirement to transparency is the public notice, by government agency and as printed in public newspapers, of government actions.

We all have a right to know of government actions (pubic notice), and to access government records (although free public access continues to be restricted). As circulation of printed newspapers declines, and web use increases, many people believe that mutable online notice can replace offline printed notice, and that prints of website notices can replace dated and printed newspaper notices. I disagree, and I am far from alone in that disagreement.

March 22, 2015 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Public interest

Modern website prints are not certified as official public records. When you request a certified copy of your birth certificate, or your marriage or divorce records, of property deed, are you directed to a website printout?

March 22, 2015 at 11:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Public interest

A printed newspaper is a lasting public record, and has been a public record, available to the public through local government records kept in local and state archives for well over 100 years. A website page's content can be changed and is not, therefore, a lasting public record. This bill is an effort to hide and erase public records of government actions in Kansas. 1984 newspeak and thoughtcrime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak.

March 22, 2015 at 10:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous