Comment history

Letter to the editor: Kobach promotion

Kobach is the man who put 666 in Topeka's zipcode.

February 21, 2017 at 7:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wichita businessman Wink Hartman running for Kansas governor

Bob, you don't need to wait for a train-wreck as governor. We've got one.

February 16, 2017 at 2:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ACLU seeks copy of Kobach's proposed changes to U.S. election law

Presidential Press-Secretary Spicer upped the claimed numbers today: now it's three to five million illegal voters.

But let's take the lower number: it's the figure our Secretary of State Kris Kobach claimed when he met with Trump. Those three million probably aren't evenly distributed by state: the alleged illegal voters are probably more numerous in the southwestern border states (we all know, wink, wink, we're NOT talking about French Canadian illegal-immigrant voters, right ?).

Pew Research said in 2014 that about 75,000 of the US' estimated 11 million illegal immigrants were in Kansas. If three million of the national total voted illegally, that's about 27.2 % of the illegals. If illegals in Kansas voted at the same rate, about 20,400 Kansas votes were cast by illegal immigrants.

Last time I looked, Kris Kobach (the only Secretary of State in America with law-enforcement powers) had prosecuted six illegal voters. I heard recently he's filed charges on a couple more, so it's presumably eight prosecutions now. That's prosecutions: his conviction rate is something less than 50 %.

Weigh the figures in Kobach's favor: let's say he's convicted four illegal voters. Here's the kicker: not one of the people he's prosecuted (much less convicted) is an illegal immigrant. All are white citizens; most are elderly: some are registered Republicans, like Kobach. That means there are STILL 20,400 illegal-immigrant voters in Kansas, and Kobach hasn't been able to catch even one.

Either Kobach is incredibly incompetent...and we should take back the extra power and extra money we gave him to do that job...or Kobach is simply a huge liar about how many illegal voters there really are.

January 24, 2017 at 6:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Hypocrisy showing?

Try to understand, Bob. "Liberal" is one of your (probably binary) ways of categorizing people. Consider it possible the world isn't structured by YOUR way of categorizing it. Greg Cooper's reference (above) to "reality" is worth heeding.

July 23, 2016 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansans split over questions about Melania Trump speech

Most to the point for me, in Melania's speech:

Although the context was a speech in support of her husband, Melania says SHE was taught the value of hard work, keeping your word, treating other people with respect. She never says those are Donald's values.

And, of course, they're not.

July 23, 2016 at 3:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter to the editor: Hypocrisy showing?

When people decide it's GOOD to kill another person (killing is what guns are for, Bob), they morally assent in killing. Calling a killer a "lone wolf terrorist" or a "law abiding" citizen is just spin-doctoring from different viewpoints.

"Liberal" ? That's meant as an insult...right ? Oh. Ouch. That stings.

July 23, 2016 at 2:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Rights have limits

"Tougher penalties" on what (the faction controlling the Kansas legislature wants to say) is no crime, but an unlimitable individual "right" ? That sounds unconstitutional...though I doubt that, or circular reasoning, would stop the Kansas legislature.

February 1, 2015 at 7:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Rights have limits

"Stop living in the past."

Isn't that the point: the current SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Constitution by what it says, and by previous precedent...stuff in the past ?

"As for the falsely, I understood it the first time."

And selectively misquoted the word out ?

"The second amendment is currently restricted to a greater degree than the first amendment. "

Could that be because the 2nd Amendment has a restriction built into it ("a well-regulated Militia"): the only one of the Bill of Rights that does ?

February 1, 2015 at 7:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Rights have limits

"No law can stop someone who cannot legally possess a gun from carrying it."

We often hear that reasoning as "proving" gun-laws are useless: criminals will still have guns. By that logic, laws against murder, speeding or rape are useless: criminals continue to do those things, despite laws against them.

By that reasoning, laws against ANYthing people do are invalid, and illegitimately restrict people's "rights." That vision of a "libertarian" society sounds a lot like South Sudan.

January 31, 2015 at 8:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Rights have limits

"The militia clause has been debated and decided by the SCOTUS. The 2nd amendment is an individual right."

One Supreme Court said so. The 1939 SCOTUS said the right must have "...a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (U.S. v. Miller) The1939 Court seems to have stayed closer to the 2nd Amendment's actual words.

"It is perfectly legal to yell fire in a theater when there is a fire."

Which is why I quoted Justice Holmes' exact words: "...FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theater."

January 31, 2015 at 8:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )