Are voters really ‘disenfranchised’?
“Nothing to celebrate” (Dec. 18 Eagle Editorial) claimed that more than 17,000 Kansans had been “disenfranchised” by Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s proof-of-citizenship law, and that the law is hampering voter-registration drives.
My dictionary defines “disenfranchise” to mean “to prevent a person from having the right to vote.” Am I to believe that many of these more than 17,000 Kansans have a desire to vote but cannot? I realize that a lot of Kansans have lost their initiative to fend for themselves, but surely they are not so helpless that they cannot obtain a proof of citizenship.
I’m thinking this issue is not so much about “disenfranchised” Kansans as it is about frustration and inconvenience for those who would use these voters to help support their political ideology. The registration “drives,” according to the editorial, are “part of the proud tradition of encouraging voting in Kansas.” Perhaps that was true in the beginning, but it is more likely that these “drives” are now a way to encourage those dependent on government assistance to support liberal candidates.
Never miss a local story.
Perhaps The Eagle would be willing to take a poll to determine the breakdown by political affiliation of both the “drivers” and those who are being “driven.”
I wanted to pass on a sincere “thank you” for The Eagle’s coverage of infant mortality in our community recently. The Eagle editorial “Mortality rate alarming” (Dec. 17 Opinion) and insightful articles by Eagle reporter Kelsey Ryan (Dec. 8-9 Eagle) were critical reminders that reducing the high incidence of infant mortality must remain a top priority for all of us.
Thanks for further educating our community of the steps that are underway to confront this insidious and complex problem. There are no magic bullets to solve this problem – just lots of hard work by many layers of our community. The editorial and articles will be helpful in continuing to motivate action to fight this issue.
Medical Society of Sedgwick County
OK to speak out?
Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” fame was asked a question by GQ magazine, and he answered. Maybe he didn’t answer in the most eloquent of ways, but he answered. Maybe he answered in a way that nowadays is considered not “politically correct,” but he answered. Maybe he just didn’t answer in the way the gay community and some liberals wanted, but he answered.
The answer he gave was the way he feels and where he stands in his beliefs, morals and values. The same can be said of Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy. These two men honestly answered a question most shy away from these days because of the repercussions and backlash they might receive for standing for something they truly believe.
Gays, atheists and a horde of others are applauded for standing up for their rights. So what’s wrong with Robertson and Cathy making a comment on what they stand for and believe?
Come on, people. Why have we become so thin-skinned and sensitive over comments that are made by some in standing up and speaking out for what they believe? It’s ridiculous.
The Common Core standards being implemented will have a broader curriculum than that under the No Child Left Behind law. Thus, history and the social studies will be emphasized. They have been minimized as teachers tended to focus on reading/language arts and mathematics in which pupil achievement was tested in NCLB. Science was added for testing in 2008.
Civics education, emphasizing good citizenship behavior, should provide major learning for children. Pupils then need to learn to think critically when separating facts from opinions, as well as fantasy from reality. Problem solving, too, needs to be in evidence, whereby questions are identified and in-depth answers sought.