The Current Online

As a long-standing resident of Lee’s Summit, remembering View High Drive as a windy, hilly, two-lane country road, I was excited when it was improved into a nice four-lane divided road.  (I also attended LCC in 1970.)  We now had great traffic flow from Lee’s Summit to I-470 and college students/visitors into Lee’s Summit have a great way in.  Roughly, three years ago the Kansas City, Missouri police started these speed traps which are set up during the middle of the day, not during any rush hour.  I have witnessed numerous individuals being flagged to stop at these speeding traps.  The root problem is the “old” View High Drive speed limit of 40 mph was never updated when the road was improved.  As many of you know, you must make a conscious effort to watch your speed to keep your car at 40 when driving this clear, visible, divided road.  I don’t believe speeding at 47-50 mph is intentional. Another speed trap was in place, yesterday, Sept. 25 in the morning.

I decided it was time to get City attention on this problem:

Issue 1:  View High Drive is actually under the jurisdiction of Kansas City, so I called the Public Works Department of Kansas City, Mo., and registered a complaint.  In my opinion, the speed limit needs to be increased. This resulted in a Case number being assigned for a “traffic study” which is to be started within the next 2 weeks. (The original speed of 40 mph was last officially set in 1978.)  

Issue 2: I am sending my concerns regarding Kansas City, Mo., police doing these regular speed traps to the KCMO officer in charge.  While I do not condone speeding, I do feel that the legal system needs to ensure reasonable and practicable laws are in place.  As coincidence would have it, I was at the college last night to teach a class and picked up “The Current.”  I was so glad to see the student’s frustration vented (“Preying on the Weak,” Sep. 12, 2008) so well – GOOD JOB!  I am enclosing a copy of this article to the office in charge. Hopefully, our combined efforts will achieve needed changes.

-Cindy Taylor

Please forward this to Farhan Zahid the author of, “Republicans assault women’s pro-choice rights.” Although, Farhan, I am sure you have received your share of opposing views on abortion I ask that you would read this argument I received from www.carm.org. Your arguments were pretty weak in your article. What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive. Even one-celled creatures are alive. What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature. The nature of the life in the woman is human. It is a product of human DNA, therefore it’s nature, and its essence is undeniably human baby. Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities. A person born without arms and legs is still a human. A person who cannot is still human. A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person. What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature. If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it? If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human? If so, then from where did it get this different nature since the only sources of its nature are human egg and a human sperm? Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it is okay to kill it. So, it doesn’t make any difference with a fetus. Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is – not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But, the fertilized egg of a human is by nature that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of a muscle or skin cell because they do not grow into humans. Therefore, they are not the same thing. A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell. To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature. Therefore, abortion is killing a life, which is human by nature. Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her? A question for those who believe in abortion and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog? If you say no, then why, if it is not human then it doesn’t matter, right? If you say no because it will become a human then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it. If you say it is all right, why is okay? -Richard Tuttle via Longview Current online

I would first like to congratulate Shannon Callahan on his ability to put all of his thoughts about our President in an entertaining poem. I think that his skills are definitely improving.
Next, I would like to call attention to the fact that Shannon’s view of President Bush in wartime didn’t seem to go over well in [instructor and class withheld]. The article was being trashed by not only the students in the class, but the teacher [sex withheld]self. I tried to point out that although Shannon is quite controversial most of the time, he is exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. I was shut down quickly and told my opinions on anti-war sentiments were uniformed by the teacher [sex withheld]self. Isn’t that funny, I am a political science major and history buff, not to mention I just did 2 speeches about the pros and cons of going to war with Iraq.
In case you can’t tell, I am a little angry. The first day of class this same teacher complained to our class that corporate America refuses to employ obese[sex withheld], so [sex withheld] is left to teach college. I remember the day the same teacher announced to our class that Americans are lazy. Hmmm?
I understand that [class withheld] is hardly the forum to start a freedom of speech debate, but I walked in on it, I did not start it. I hope that the teacher rethinks how [sex withheld] allows [sex withheld] favorite students to have an opinion, and dismisses the opinions of those students [sex withheld] just tolerates. I left class as soon as [sex withheld] insulted my intelligence and cut me off. Shannon Callahan has a right to be against the war and some people need to lighten up and look at both sides of issues. How can we learn to reach conclusions without first questioning?

-Megan Wheeler

I just wanted to write a letter to congratulate the Longview Current on being a well rounded, informative and entertaining college paper. Keep up the good work!
I especially would like to thank Shannon Callahan on his opinion article. It takes true courage to write on subjects generally opposed by the status quo. Anytime your writing elicits death threats from people too narrow-minded to accept the potential validity of someone else’s opinion, you are doing something great! I consider Shannon to be doing something very patriotic every time he writes his article: protecting the American value of free speech.

-Lydia Riley