Log in ·
Re the book- and people-graphics used in the print edition to illustrate increasing visitors but declining checkout volume: I appreciate the effort to jazz up the front page of the LJW with some USA Today style graphics, but the result is not an informative one. Using slightly smaller people and slightly smaller but differently colored books to convey an order of magnitude confuses rather than informs the reader. Simple bar or column graphs with linear scales would have been appropriate. Sometimes less is more, and this was one of those times.
Posted 23 April 2018, 4:53 a.m.
When was the last time we heard stories about households being undercharged for city-supplied services?
Posted 15 April 2018, 8:06 p.m.
I'm for the referendum, but this "playing chicken" with voters by holding worthy projects hostage needs to stop right now.
Posted 4 April 2018, 8:14 p.m.
Watch the youtube. This man needs help, and he shouldn't be teaching.
Posted 2 April 2018, 8:15 p.m.
The gift that keeps on . . . taking.
Posted 2 April 2018, 4:52 p.m.
The "Farmland" that operated the Lawrence plant just doesn't exist anymore, as it went bankrupt and basically liquidated all its assets. The pork processing unit -- which makes a favorite brand of bacon -- was bought by Smithfield Foods. The fertilizer assets were sold off to other firms. Lawrence acquired the polluted property off K-10 -- and the cleanup trust -- out of bankruptcy. Corliss's Folly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmlan...
Posted 26 March 2018, 3:03 p.m.
Because retired people on fixed incomes -- and their family members -- are immune from mental health issues? We're all in this together.
Posted 18 December 2017, 9:18 a.m.
He's just drawing on his experience in Iowa in his former position, not advocating for providing services for out of area people.
But, no, we should not impose some strict residency requirement for use of the facility. What a cruel thought.
Posted 18 December 2017, 9:15 a.m.
Posted 12 December 2017, 9:28 p.m.
As far as I know, the tax bill doesn't propose taxing need- or merit-based scholarships. So, it would seem the simple solution is to de-couple graduate student employment from "tuition waivers", aka merit scholarship. Instead of universities offering an inseverable package of salary for work and tuition waiver -- both arguably income under the tax bill, graduate students would be offered a merit scholarship and an offer to work for pay, and acceptance of the former would not require acceptance of the latter. Of course, this would shift the bargaining power to graduate students, who might just decide to forgo the pittance they make in exchange for grading, TAing, RAing, etc. and instead focus on their own scholarship. Overall, the effect might be to increase the welfare of graduate students, who would enjoy the freedom to say "no thanks" to what some might view as coercive employment or be paid more and more equitably for it when they choose to say "yes."
Posted 27 November 2017, 7:14 a.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2018 LJWorld.com