en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/109753 Comments by perturbed http://www.katu.com/politics/Adams-considers-Portland-ban-on-public-display-of-fake-guns-146034235.html#IDComment332023196 Would Sam Adams prefer that a bank robber walk into a bank with a real gun? Thu, 5 Apr 2012 05:44:42 +0000 http://www.katu.com/politics/Adams-considers-Portland-ban-on-public-display-of-fake-guns-146034235.html#IDComment332023196 http://www.katu.com/sports/college/104668484.html#IDComment103423538 "Oklahoma (2) 5-0 1,225 5-2 versus Cyclones rush defense in Big 10" What precisely does this mean? First, how does a team compile a win-loss record against another team's "rush defense?" Second, both Oklahoma and Iowa State are in the Big-12, not the Big 10. Mon, 11 Oct 2010 07:27:35 +0000 http://www.katu.com/sports/college/104668484.html#IDComment103423538 http://www.kptv.com/money/23581720/detail.html#IDComment75927389 The assertion of the article, that only minor fixes are needed, is plainly incorrect and based on the false factual assumption that Social Security will go broke in 2037. It's broke right now as the "trust fund" is a fiction. The real costs of Social Security are both the payroll taxes used to pay benefits AND the other government funds (e.g. income taxes) needed to liquidate the T-bills held in the "trust fund." Basically this means, that so long as current payroll taxes cannot meet the current obligations, the excess costs of Social Security are shifted by an accounting gimmick to the rest of the federal budget. It's that gap that is the real problem. Tue, 18 May 2010 05:23:18 +0000 http://www.kptv.com/money/23581720/detail.html#IDComment75927389 http://www.katu.com/outdoors/featured/90141497.html#IDComment66710692 Is it too much to ask for the title of an article to accurately reflect that article's content? The title should read: "Two more glaciers in Glacier National Park lose their name." The article makes quite clear that, though shrunken, the glaciers are still there. Fri, 9 Apr 2010 02:57:45 +0000 http://www.katu.com/outdoors/featured/90141497.html#IDComment66710692 http://www.katu.com/news/60411347.html#IDComment35552590 A ballot is a legal document, as well, yet those are kept anonymous for the same reasons as stated by the sponsors of the referendum. I can understand the need for some kind of bureaucracy to verify the authenticity of the signers, but beyond that what purpose is there for public disclosure of the signatures aside from pressure? Once authenticity is verified, the actual names of the signatatories have no legal relevance. The asserion that a person should have the courage of their convictions and not hide behind anonymity when signing a petition is fine as a personal ideal, but it doesn't help the democratic process any more than would a measure to publicize people's votes. Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:02:02 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/60411347.html#IDComment35552590 http://www.katu.com/news/57721542.html#IDComment33702879 This article makes no sense. If the problem is unnecessary tests and treatments by doctors, how can the private insurance companies be to blame? They certainly don't want to pay unnecessary expenses. Most criticism of indsurance companies that I hear of are their refusal to allow procedures and tests they deem unnecessary. My dental insurer, for example, will only pay for one X-ray a year. Either the reporter/editor left someting important out of this article, or these doctors don't know what they are talking about. Wed, 9 Sep 2009 03:36:53 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/57721542.html#IDComment33702879 http://www.katu.com/news/local/53128207.html#IDComment30712509 I've read the provision in question, and though I don't know where Palin got the term "panel", her criticism is not that far off base.To begin with, Medicare doesn't pay doctors enough to turn a profit. If a Medicare patient is terminally ill, the doctor's financial interests are that the pateint sign a "do not revive" order, etc. so that the hospital doesn't have to keep taking a hit from Medicare reimbursement schedules. When this provision offers to pay doctors to sit down with the patient to discuss "end-of-life" options, dictates that these sessions must discuss with the patient do-not-revive orders, denial of expensive treatments, etc., and provides that any signed document the doctor leaves the room with is legally binding, just what do you think is the intended consequences of this are? Is this active euthenasia? No. But anyone who thinks that there is not going to be a good amount of pressure or coercion going on in these sit-downs is kidding themselves, given that the only parties sufferring the financial burden of a decision to go to the wall to extend the patient's life are the hospital, the doctors, and the government. Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:01:05 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/53128207.html#IDComment30712509 http://www.katu.com/news/34763564.html#IDComment11420581 There's a very good article in the New York Times explaining exactly why US automakers can't compete well with foreign manufacturers. Basically, their pension and labor costs are so high that it adds about 2K to the average cost of vehicles sold compared to those of foreign manufacturers. This means that a car built by Ford, for example, is competing on a cost basis with vehicles one step up on the luxury chain. The idea of giving billions of dollars in taxpayer money to save an industry, without at the same time doing something to address the reasons that the industy is not competitive, is mind-numbingly stupid. If you were an investor, would you dump more money into a losing industry that has no plans to turn it's balance sheets around? Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:02:17 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/34763564.html#IDComment11420581 http://www.katu.com/news/local/34430354.html#IDComment10880749 So if I surgicaly attach feathers to my back and call myself a chicken, does that make me one? Does your answer change if I am able to convince a sufficient number of nitwits in the legislature to pass a law saying that I can be a chicken if I so desire? This is a story about someone who is a woman, but for whatever reason, is psychologically uncomfortable with that fact. So much so, that the person has surgury to adopt the phyiscal appearance of something the person is not. I can't see how it is at all beneficail to patronize that person. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:35:51 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/34430354.html#IDComment10880749 http://dev.www.katu.com/news/election/27007429.html#IDComment4473443 The phrase "Soviet move in Georgia" was not a part of the quotation from Smith's office, hence the error was more likely to be that of the AP writer. Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:38:22 +0000 http://dev.www.katu.com/news/election/27007429.html#IDComment4473443