Comment history

Letter: Somalia field trip?

Small government, low taxes, and unlimited gun-rights. Somalia sounds like "conservatives" promised land. Maybe our governor and legislators will want to stay.

October 30, 2013 at 1:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Two separate classes of voters possible under Secretary of State Kobach's proposal

Perhaps Mr. Koch...I mean Kobach...could give his two tiers of voters memorable names that will stick in our minds. No hurry: just whenever he has time to write legislation for the state of which he's an elected official.

He might designate his preferred class of voters, for example, the "Real Americans." And I'd suggest he designate his second-tier voters as "Non-Integrated Geopolitical Group: Electoral Reserve Status."

It will be handier for Mr. Kobach, of course, to refer to these second-tier voters by their acronym.

October 14, 2013 at 8:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Harmful faction

Realizing "states' rights" is part of the (falsely so-called) "conservative" agenda, a basic moral criteria applies. Divisiveness, inherent in the "states' rights" doctrine espoused by "neo-cons," is another political principle harmful to our country. It didn't work under the Articles of Confederation (which Mr. Groenhagen cites), and it was disastrous for those who followed it to secession in 1860-61.

The simple moral recognition is that unity is good for a nation, and divisiveness is harmful. As someone glossed "E Pluribus Unum," the founders' intent was that America's core operative principle should be that "we're all in this together." Even those unable to distinguish between good and bad principles should nonetheless take a lesson from what our history has shown results from "states' rights' " divisiveness.

Nor do neo-cons' ideas of individual "rights" (as propounded by Mr. Groenhagen, Paul Ryan, and others) evidence honest or thorough thought. Their idea of "rights" is in essence entitlement: human beings are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That may or may not be so in human beings' secular relationship with their human government. But the assertion that the God of Judeo-Christian tradition (presumably the One referenced in the Declaration of Independence, and by neo-cons) ENTITLES individuals politically is manifestly contrary to Judeo-Christian scriptures. "Rights" as entitlements appears in those scriptures only as "the rights of the poor:" that those in need and hunger are entitled to the care of a righteous society. This scriptural idea of "rights" is, of course, anathema to neo-cons.

October 14, 2013 at 1:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sen. Roberts calls on HHS Secretary Sebelius to resign

This is the same Senator who used his political clout to get the federal animal- and agro-disease lab moved from an island off New York to the middle of America's agricultural his state.

Glitches in the Care Act's operation are nothing compared to that time-bomb's potential harm.

October 12, 2013 at 8:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback administration pushes to repeal restrictions on corporate agriculture; opponents say family farms will suffer

Best comment I've seen on corporate personhood is the bumper-sticker: "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

March 10, 2013 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback administration seeks to contain political fallout on taxes

There are two other stories on the "state news" LJW page:

a video of the Governor's 13 December press-briefing in Lawrence, where he said his plans for the 2012 budget were to "grow the economy;"

and yesterday's story that the Governor's $75,000 economic-consultant was part of a big-dollar Ponzi scheme.

These three stories give a good summary of all Republican economic policy: increase taxes on the poor, "grow the economy" by making the wealthy richer, and get a crook to figure out how to do it.

January 19, 2012 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kobach representing self in federal court about how state treats small political parties

Voevoda's right. Blaming everything on Obama, and making it the solution of all political questions and national problems to "get" Obama, is vicious brain-dead politics of the worst kind.

But Republican leaders (such as Senate leader Mitch McConnell) repeatedly affirm that that's " most important political goal, along with every active Republican in the country.”

What's that tell us about the political principles and intelligence...or lack of both...of "every active Republican in the country" ?

January 19, 2012 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

State senator says she caught Rep. TerriLois Gregory recording conversation

In defense of TerriLois, who's my state representative:

She was on the committee hearing testimony for Kobach' voter I.D. legislation. She was generous in sharing the testimony that committee heard, and willing to listen to my critique of it. In the end she (along with the committee, state government, and most Kansans) were snookered into furthering Kobach' personal agenda. But that's because of the bad political principles she follows (along with the committee, state government, and most Kansans).

The current ruling faction in our state and the Republican Party take as their principle the Reagan inaugural sound-bite that "...government IS the problem." But government conducted on such an ANTI-government principle can only be illogical, misdirected, and harmful: the situation we currently have.

If government is evil, it raises the question WHY Reagan-followers would want to be part of it ? And when they are (the situation we currently have), their operative principle forces them to see any GOOD purpose of government (health-care, education, regulation of financial or energy companies, the arts) as evil (i.e., "socialism").

Despite their purported "Christian" principles, that faction's view (and practice) of government contradicts the New Testament view: that human government should do GOOD (healthcare for the poor, possibly ?) and punish evil-doers (banks and financial companies that nearly destroyed our economy, do you think ?).

TerriLois follows bad political principles. If she twists scripture to whitewash those as "Christian" principles, she's got problems bigger than her politics. But the same could be said for her faction, her party, our governor, Kris Kobach (whose national ambitions make him the most deeply sinister of the lot), most of the state legislature, and a lot of Kansans who've been deceived by them.

TerriLois has followed bad principles. From my contacts with her, however, I don't consider her a bad person. She's seemed to TRY to do the right thing as a legislator, but been led astray by the evil principles she follows.

People who do harm because they've been deceived to think it's RIGHT deserve pity and forgiveness, not censure. On the other hand, it's not wise to give such an individual, faction, or party, governmental responsibilities.

January 19, 2012 at 12:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ministers to deliver petitions calling on Kansas Speaker O’Neal to step down

Whatever else, this incident shows the bankruptcy of juvenile PERSONAL attack as politics.

U.S. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell set that agenda in 2010, saying his job was to make Obama a one-term President. He re-affirmed in 2011 that "getting" Obama is " single most important political goal, along with every active Republican in the country."

The country has problems. There are questions what principles we should follow to address those problems. Obama seems to be trying to deal with those real issues as will best do the country GOOD. "Every active Republican in the country" meanwhile seems to think the ultimate purpose of politics and government is personal attack on Obama.

In point of fact, Psalm 109 was written by King David about those who abused him and "...repay me evil for good." Rep. O'Neal's reversing the scriptural context is a more serious perversion than even his misuse of politics and public office. In biblical terms, Rep, O'Neal needs to repent all the wrongs he's done in being an "active Republican."

January 19, 2012 at 10:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Seeking failure

devo:"government exists because of and in proportion to the inability or unwillingness of individuals to fend for themselves.Inability: 'provide for the common defense.'"You got that right. There are common tasks, in which it's necessary to combine our individual efforts for the common good. Hence, "E Pluribus Unum." That consideration, and a little war on the behalf of our national unity, convince me the founders meant something important by "promote a more perfect Union," and not just "meaningless happy talk."You say "to secure the blessings of Liberty" is the most important clause. O.K.; but you've already pointed out that some desirable ends ("provide for the common defense," for example) can't be accomplished without working together; and that always seems to require some degree of giving up individual "liberty." The examples you cite are all, I notice, examples of responsibility: a quantity that also involves letting one's own "liberty" (or even well-being) take second place.Obviously, if everyone acted responsibly, we wouldn't need government to restain people who deem their individual "liberty" a license to harm society or its members. But some do. So the weight of government (in our system, our own collective weight for "domestic tranquility," "general welfare," and "Justice," etc.) has to go into restraining them. Bigger criminals produce the need for bigger government; and financial criminals big enough to threaten the entire country's well-being are forcing still-bigger government on us.The founders' concept of power was primarily concerned with its political aspects, which they thought should be distrusted and heavily controlled. They were right. But they probably didn't take enough account of economic power; I think our history has amply demonstrated that business wealth is also power, and can also be a great danger to the country's well-being (indeed, willing to sacrifice the country's well-being for its own profits). It too should be distrusted and heavily controlled. That puts all of us in the "inability" category you propose as a reason for government, doesn't it ?: none of us can control CitiBank's greed by our individual actions. Again, the size of the criminals makes bigger government necessary.And again, the criminals got that big because bad ideological policy relaxed previous restraints on them. Your answer is MORE de-regulation ?!? To paraphrase Einstein, insanity is doing again what caused problems, and hoping for good results.

February 9, 2009 at 11:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )