Observations from an apartment in Kansas City - Latest Comments

Re: Losing a friend

Michelle Ballard — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:34:03 -0000

Thank you, son. I forgot how he used to latch on to your jeans. :)

Just to let you know, his birthday was March 7, 2000. We adopted him sometime in May from the Animal Lifeline of Iowa, but I can't remember the exact date. I did send them a donation in memory of him this morning after we got back from taking him on his last trip to the vet. We are having him cremated and I think we may bury his ashes somewhere in the back yard, maybe under the cedar trees.

He was a good boy and was always very loving and forgiving, even when I got mad at his barking. I do believe now that he did have Cushing's disease but that we caught it too late. What was diagnosed as thyroid disease may have actually only been a symptom.

The other three know he's gone too. I let them sniff his body before we took him away. They've all been mourning too.

It will definitely be different around here and more quiet than before. No more of his laying under the chair and barking. I will miss him terribly.

Re: Rest peacefully, grandpa

Richard — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:45:50 -0000

Hello Kenneth, I am your cousin... He was my grandpa. Contact me at richard066@yahoo.com... I knew him up until I was 4 years old. I am sure you know what happened but I would love to hear stories about him and have some questions.... thanks.

Re: My message to Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Punishing the innocent”

Kenneth — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:55:50 -0000

Thanks for the kind words. Now that Feinstein's bill has been introduced, I fully intend to write McCaskill and Blunt again. I suggest you do the same. Though part of me thinks it'll be a waste because McCaskill will likely vote in favor of Feinstein's bill if it hits the Senate Floor, regardless of what is said to her.

Re: My message to Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Punishing the innocent”

Hc — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 21:57:35 -0000

I applaud this letter!
She is ...awful, and I am a Missourian...
If you have already sent it, send it again!

Re: Follow-up on De’Longhi EC155

Alistair Fielder — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:55 -0000

Sounds like a good tip

Re: Double jeopardy – momentarily revisiting Casey Anthony

Pete — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:10:12 -0000

Saying Casey can not be re-tried for murder is not completely true. She is not immune from prosecution under Federal law. Casey was tried under Florida State Law in a Florida State Court at the State level. She is not beyond Federal charges being filed for Murder, Comspiracy or any other related crime. She can be tried for murder again by a Federal Prosecutor in Federal Court, if federal violations related to the murder are presented. She can also be charged with (Conspiracy to commit murder) now if evidence indicates she assisted in the murder of Caylee. With so many people that knew of Caylee missing for 31 days, her death, the friends explaining how casey wanted the "Good Life'" with partying after caylee went missing. It is not uncommon that authorities would obtain information or evidence later that warrants federal charges being filed and the defendant being tried on further charges. This is exactly why defendants have to be very careful after a trial about what they say to people at any time if they really were responsible for any part of a murder or it being commited. Many times authorities go quiet and let time play it's course when defendants are found "Not Gulity", because "Not Guilty" does not mean Innocent of the charges. Defendants get careless after time passes believing they can not be charged with any further crime(s), this is not so. When defendants go free from a trial, they can get careless about what they say or to whom or when. They tend to think they can not be arrested or charged again period for any reason, this is not so. Casey was never charged with Conspiracy or Assisting with the murder of Caylee. Very few people can avoid letting something slip out over time that connects them to the crime in some way because they got their freedom back. I would not be surprised if somewhere down the road, some related act of this crime surfaces along with evidence. Casey is not immune from being tried for this or other acts as the public may think. Conspiracy is a Felony as well as other charges should they surface. In most cases something slips out down the road because people get careless and talk thinking they are clear in every way from being charged again or for another crime. Federal courts and prosecutors would have jurisdiction in this case.

Re: Playing games

Tnmusicman — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 00:27:23 -0000

Yeah, actually I can share my faith without making claims other than "Jesus loves you and died for you". That could be the extent of what I share when it comes to Jesus.

Yes, I would explain why I believe what I believe,IF the conversation were to go further but alot of times it doesn't. I'm perfectly willing to go further but the point is most times it never gets that far. Im not pushy about it. Sharing ones faith can be simply letting the other person know you *have* a faith and a belief. The idea is to plant the seed,not to try and make it grow if it doesn't want to. Of course, if it does I would gladly hold the watering can all day.

Re: Playing games

Kenneth — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 00:12:02 -0000

Of course merely sharing your faith isn't making claims about the universe, because those claims have already been made. It's a matter of what you choose to say when sharing your faith, which of those claims already made you will reiterate.

Christianity speaks of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent deity who gave us his only begotten son to eventually be sacrificed on a cross so that everyone can be saved if only we'd accept him, and if we don't then an eternity of torture awaits the apostates and sinners.

In sharing your faith, you have to explain it. You may not be aiming to convert people, but you've got to be willing to explain what you believe -- i.e. your faith -- and why you believe it. To do the latter requires you to make claims about the nature of God and Jesus, and making claims about the nature of either requires you to make claims about the nature of the universe since, according to the Bible, God created everything. And in making claims about the nature of God and Jesus, both of which only have any definition because of the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible, you will also have to say how you know what you believe to be true, since I presume you wouldn't believe what you do if you didn't believe it to be true, or at least I hope you don't believe in false concepts knowing they are false concepts.

You cannot share your faith without explaining it, and you cannot explain your faith and why you have such faith without elaboration.

Re: Playing games

Tnmusicman — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 23:49:55 -0000

Once again, sharing our *faith* is not us making claims about the universe. I'm talking about the love of Jesus , not creation or anything else. The point in sharing ones faith is to do just that - share,not convert and not convince.

Re: Not Guilty – My last word on Casey Anthony

Kenneth — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:18:53 -0000

And what does jury nullification have to do with any of this?

Re: Not Guilty – My last word on Casey Anthony

Kenneth — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:15:48 -0000

Sorry but murder is a Federal offense, asshat. Specifically the statute is 18 USC § 1111.

Re: Not Guilty – My last word on Casey Anthony

Roger — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:04:28 -0000

You are stupid!YOU DON'T HAVE ANY

Jury nullification: A fundamental right!

Indiana Constitution: Article1: Section 19:

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. The 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution of the United States means the same thing.

An unjust law is not a law at all and any person charged with violating an unjust law has not violated any law and should be found not guilty simply because the law is unjust!

WE MUST PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONS

Re: Not Guilty – My last word on Casey Anthony

Mann8161 — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:02:37 -0000

Sorry, but murder is not a federal offense moron! So no they can't!!!

Re: Not Guilty – My last word on Casey Anthony

Kenneth — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:19:13 -0000

It's called the dual sovereignty doctrine. Google it.

Re: Not Guilty – My last word on Casey Anthony

Joyewils — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:32:37 -0000

Double Jeopardy prohibits the State from retrying Casey, however the Federal Government can charge and try her regardless of DJ.

Re: Not Guilty – My last word on Casey Anthony

Jln9301 — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:17:00 -0000

no they can't, it's called double jeopardy

Re: Playing games

Kenneth — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:29:57 -0000

Sharing one's faith requires the presentation of various claims made by the religion to which one subscribes, if such religion is making positive claims about the nature of the universe. Some religions are merely subscriptions to particular philosophies without the religion itself making claims about the universe. Most religions, however, do make claims about the universe and those claims can be shown to be demonstrably true as presented if the claim is, indeed, true. If the claim is in error, then that error must be corrected or the claim discarded.

The theology called Christianity makes positive claims about the nature of the universe, the life and times of one particular wondering prophet who lived approximately 2000 years ago, the life and times of other individuals scribed into the Bible, what will happen in the future, what will happen to us after we die, the existence and nature of a particular deity and what that deity has allegedly commanded of us all. And all of this is presented as Truth with a capital-T. To present something as Truth requires demonstrating it to be true, demonstrating all of it to be true, otherwise it cannot be called Truth.

Re: Playing games

Tnmusicman — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:17:38 -0000

Actually, the Christian doesn't have to prove anything. Contrary to popular opinion,Christians aren't trying to convert. Okay, some Christians TRY but for the most part that's not the goal in sharing ones faith. Sharing ones faith is the point. It's not up to us as mortal men to try and "convince" someone into believing in God. That can't happen. Some Christians are well-meaning and their heart is in the right place but the only thing we can logically do is share our faith. It's up to God to do the rest.

Re: Atheists lacking balls

Tnmusicman — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:01:40 -0000

Well, the only reason an atheist gives for saying "lack of belief" is so they don't have to prove their position.
I've had a few atheists claim they really do "lack belief" and I explain to them they are holding to a position but then they say its like when a child has no understanding of God that one would say the child is ignorant of the knowledge of God. I offer that it's NOTHING like that because adults know about the concept of God/god(s) and either accept or reject. Those that arent sure would still fall into the atheist catagory.
I agree that "lack of belief" should not be used, especially as a crutch for those with "lack of balls".

Re: Rejecting God: Why are atheists so hated?

Bseymour2550 — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:00:14 -0000

This viedo was wonderful and a huge help for me. this will fit in great for my atheist project for school

Re: Defining "equal work"

Kenneth — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:20:27 -0000

You do realize that there have often been laws to target perceived injustices that didn't actually exist when examined with the scrutiny that the respective legislatures never bothered to pursue? A wage gap may have once existed when women were first entering the workforce, but when you look at the kind of jobs that women typically perform in a company versus the jobs that men typically perform in the same company, they will be bringing different levels of value to the firm, and so will be paid differently because of the value they bring. Compensation is and should be decided on an individual basis.

If you research the Lily Ledbetter Act, you'll find that the Act was in response to a Supreme Court decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 US 618 (2007), in which the Supreme Court clarified how it perceived the statute of limitations with regard to filing discrimination claims under the law that existed at the time. A simple Wikipedia search would have clarified that for you. In response to the Supreme Court, Congress clarified the statutory language. The Act did little more than redefine the statute of limitations with regard to wage discrimination claims.

As for where you can find information regarding the alleged (yes I did intend to use that word) gender wage gap and wage discrimination, Julie Borowski wrote an excellent article on the topic over at Freedom Works: http://www.freedomworks.org/bl...

Now this doesn't discount the fact that there are cases of discrimination, but the "equal pay for equal work" crowds make it sound like corporations and companies are eager to discriminate but find the law inconvenient to their ends, and nothing could be further from the truth. The law isn't what is holding back these corporations from discriminating, it's competition, plain and simple. If you think you can earn more for what you're doing, you are free to discuss that with your employer or, if things cannot be resolved to your satisfaction, you can go elsewhere looking for better compensation. And employers know that if they want to retain the best talent, or even their current talent since training new people costs time and money, they need to retain them with a good compensation package.

Re: Defining "equal work"

Karen Meredith — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:04:17 -0000

Refuted in who's mind? The Lily Ledbetter Act would not have been put in place if there weren't companies that paid unequally. Of course different experience would require some kind of scale in calculating wages.
Don't use the word "alleged" pay gap when discussing this issue. In this case "alleged" is a loaded word and sets the tone for your whole article. FAIL!

Re: I am not pro-abortion

Kenneth — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:39:57 -0000

Unfortunately I don't think there's any way to know how many abortions were being performed per day prior to Roe v. Wade. And prior to 1970 abortion was illegal nationwide. But I do know the extent to which many were trying to go "under the radar" to obtain such services. Infanticide was also allegedly a problem as well in the earlier decades of the 20th century, as were teenagers and young women who were dying attempting to induce a miscarriage by any number of methods.

But the problem with crisis pregnancy centers is twofold. First I've yet to see one that is not owned by a religious organization. Not saying that none exist, just haven't heard of a secular one, unless they're going by a different name than "crisis pregnancy center".

Here in KC, the main crisis pregnancy center is Rachel House, which was founded by LIGHT House of KC, which is a Christian mission for unwed mothers. But you have to dig to find that as it's not anywhere on their website. On the surface they seem to do everything to hide the fact they are Christian organizations. Women who walk into these centers to obtain the advertised free pregnancy test can find themselves unexpectedly in the audience of preaching and proselytizing, especially if their pregnancy test is negative -- I've read the stories. What do they fear by being open about who they are?

Second, they are known to provide inaccurate information because in many cases, they're not set up to persuade women away from abortion, but scare them away from it. I've read of these clinics saying that abortion causes breast cancer (no evidence to suggest this) and overstating the risks of the various options. If they're not going to provide accurate information, why even exist? Unless providing accurate information is not their intention. Lying in the name of Christ perhaps?

If all they're going to do is lie to people while preaching and proselytizing, how is that helping? Now I'd be lying if I said they didn't have any impact on the incidence of abortion. The way they go about it, however, is certainly questionable.

Re: I am not pro-abortion

Christie Lynn Edds Cali — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:20:14 -0000

I am sure before Roe V Wade there were not 4K abortions happening everyday. Perhaps there were a few hundred in the states where it was legal and much much fewer where it was not. So are we going to save every child. No if a mom wants to kill her child bad enough she will do it. Having a law would also say that we in this society value human life, especially the most vulnerable and innocent.

As for the picketers who scream....I dunno if they do any good. At least they are trying to do something. Which is better than most.

I am ok if secular agencies want to do it. I have no choice but to bring faith into because it is a part of me and my philosophy. However if they want to come at it in a humanistic....we cannot murder our own offspring....I am good with that. On that there are many many Christian charities who do very good work. I am not sure why you don't like crisis pregnancy centers, but they are simply the front line. Behind them are many ministries willing to house, pay for pre-natal, and arrange for the woman to either begin her life as a mother or arrange for an adoption.

Re: I am not pro-abortion

Kenneth — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:37:01 -0000

The problem in black communities is far far greater than simple
education. There is alot going on there.

You will find no disagreement from me on that. Even in the points you provided, I don't think you really named everything. Would that even be possible at this junction? There is plenty going on, all of which is contributing to the problems that are being observed there.

But that wasn't the idea with quoting my research. Instead it was to point out how even ready availability of contraceptives can still result high abortion rates. And where you have the two, along with high pregnancy rates with a significant percentage of those being unintended, it is because the contraceptives are either not being used or not being used correctly. We can debate the "why" till the sun explodes...

The law would work if it had any amount of teeth. We would also need a
compassionate manner to deal with the women who had counted on being
able to simply kill their child when they got pregnant.

Previous laws have had teeth to them and they still weren't effective at curtailing abortions. Which is why I've previously advocated addressing the concerns these pregnant women have. (Click the link at the end of this article to take you to the other one in question.) There are plenty of proselytizing pro-lifers who stand outside abortion clinics screaming canned statements at people who go in (I've seen the videos). How does that help? It doesn't.

Abortion I feel is the issue that can show how charity is far better than government, but great efforts are required along with a lot of donated time. Sure you can have a law, but it won't do much good, even if it has "teeth". What is needed are charities that are set up to help women who become unexpectedly pregnant, and I'm not talking about the "crisis pregnancy centers" either. And (I have a feeling this is where I might lose you on this) they must be secular organizations, or at least organizations that won't be bringing God into the picture at every turn, because, as I've said before, doing so has a remarkable way of turning people off, in which case you may lose your chance to prevent another abortion.